Do these numbers include the albums included with a ticket? You'd think that is over 250,000 copies (25 shows times 10,000) with tickets.

It includes that too. Not everyone that purchased a ticket took up the option to get the free album. I made sure I got mine for the two tickets I purchased. I also purchased two delux albums, one for myself and one for my sister for Christmas. So I'm responsible for four albums sold. But, you had to actually click on the option, and if you did not, you didn't get an album with your ticket. The album they sent out with the tickets was just the regular album without the 4 extra tracks with the Delux. I assume the digital was just the regular album too, but I don't do digital, so I did not get that.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: McSwilly on February 12, 2018, 08:45:22 PM

I think this is a reflection of how poor the album is. All this debate about why ticket sales are down, I think it is is cost and the quality of the new LP. That said, Can't wait to see the best live band ever in May

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on February 12, 2018, 11:15:30 PM

I think this is a reflection of how poor the album is. All this debate about why ticket sales are down, I think it is is cost and the quality of the new LP. That said, Can't wait to see the best live band ever in May

The album is good. This is a reflection of the current music market and the age of the band. If you compare SOEís sales to recent albums from other rock bands of the same era, almost all of them did worse. I think the only exception is Metallica. Maybe the OP can speak to this as they seem to have some good data.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: singnomore on February 12, 2018, 11:17:42 PM

I agree obviously there will be different points of view on the album I think this is how the industry operates these days. Itís why everyone is touring - only way to make any money.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 12, 2018, 11:36:25 PM

I think this is a reflection of how poor the album is. All this debate about why ticket sales are down, I think it is is cost and the quality of the new LP. That said, Can't wait to see the best live band ever in May

The album is good. This is a reflection of the current music market and the age of the band. If you compare SOEís sales to recent albums from other rock bands of the same era, almost all of them did worse. I think the only exception is Metallica. Maybe the OP can speak to this as they seem to have some good data.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Billboard Magazine year for their top album sales chart runs from December 1, 2016 through November 30, 2017.

Metallica had the 2nd biggest selling album of the 2017 year with 1,077,000 copies sold. The #1 album by Bruno Mars only beat Metallica by 42,000 copies. The Metallica album benefited from the free album if purchased a ticket package. Metallica did its first extensive tour of the United States in 8 years and played lots of Stadium shows. Metallica may have sold 300,000 to 500,000 through the album/ticket package. You can see this because the Metallica album had dropped on the charts and was about to go out and then tickets for the tour were put on sale and the album zoomed all the way back into the top 10. So the album/ticket combo really helped Metallica's album helping to nearly give them the #1 album of the year in the United States.

If U2 can sell another 100,000 copies of the album, they will likely have one of the top 15 biggest selling albums of 2018 in the United States.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 12, 2018, 11:39:20 PM

I think this is a reflection of how poor the album is. All this debate about why ticket sales are down, I think it is is cost and the quality of the new LP. That said, Can't wait to see the best live band ever in May

The album has been highly rated by many critics and I consider it the 6th best album they have ever done. I know these sales seem low, but these are actually good sales in 2018. If the album can sell another 100,000 copies before December, it will likely be one of the top 15 sellers of the year.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 12, 2018, 11:52:24 PM

I agree obviously there will be different points of view on the album I think this is how the industry operates these days. Itís why everyone is touring - only way to make any money.

U2 is still making money on the album, especially since they have a 25% royalty rate. So they get around $3 dollars to $4 dollars per album sold and have sold a little over 1 million copies worldwide so far.

But of course a band that only sold 100,000 copies and only gets $1 dollar per album and then splits that between 4 members are probably living pay check to pay check. Touring helps if your already popular, but if your not, you may only be paying the cost of what it takes to tour and only making a tiny profit. Streaming and individual track sales helps, although the amount of money the artist gets with those formats is a tiny fraction compared to selling one full album.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: ricebird5678 on February 16, 2018, 07:37:51 PM

Total sales after 11 weeks in the United States is 272,288. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

So a big drop down to #84 from #52, but in sales terms only a decline of 655 copies. On average, an album has to sell at least 1,100 copies to make the top 200 in any given week. Once again this includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: jarsfan1977 on February 21, 2018, 03:16:57 PM

Wish it were selling more, but the fact that it's still in the Billboard top 100 after 11 weeks is notable, I suppose.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 21, 2018, 05:32:44 PM

I wonder how much of the U2 fanbase no longer buys music and just streams it online or obtains it in other ways.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: davis on February 21, 2018, 06:23:12 PM

Most of the younger people I know buy no music. All streamed or pirated. Yet another thing the internet has ruined...

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: BalconyTV on February 22, 2018, 07:26:44 AM

Folks. I'm 34. I don't buy music. Its just a waste of money in general. I have an apple music account and listen to the album there. If I had money to burn, I might have a record player and get a copy. But I don't like collecting stuff anymore. So...thats a bit pointless too.

So no point looking at sales. I presume most people are like me. Look at streams mind you.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 22, 2018, 10:30:29 AM

Folks. I'm 34. I don't buy music. Its just a waste of money in general. I have an apple music account and listen to the album there. If I had money to burn, I might have a record player and get a copy. But I don't like collecting stuff anymore. So...thats a bit pointless too.

So no point looking at sales. I presume most people are like me. Look at streams mind you.

Unfortunately, based on youtube, U2's streams for their new music are very low. U2's best performance vs other artist recorded music is still with album sales despite how small the figures are compared to albums released years and decades ago.

On a side issue:

I understand your reasoning for you personally for not purchasing music, plus given what has happened with technology and the internet. But I think artist deserve to be paid for their work. When I purchased Achtung Baby On Compact Disc back in November 1991, it was $15.99 + whatever tax. Adjusted for inflation into 2018 prices, that is $29.21, + whatever tax. The artist deserve to be paid for their work and they used to be paid for their work.

Imagine suddenly not being paid for the work that you do, or only being paid a fraction, maybe 10% of what you used to be paid. How would that effect you and the others like you?

Despite what is fair, technology and the internet seem to have permanently ruined the fair payment of artist for their recorded work. Its just too easy to obtain the music for free thanks to technology and none of the attempts to redress the problem have worked. Plus it is now culturally ingrained that there is nothing wrong with not paying for recorded music.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: hollywoodswag on February 22, 2018, 03:46:25 PM

I once swore I would always stick with CDs and never buy music directly in digital form unless I just wanted a specific song. Now, I'm all about buying digital copies of things (it was actually the availability of U2 deluxe editions on sale around the release of TJT30 that inspired it). I tried a little bit of streaming, but honestly, it really isn't for me unless I'm entertaining people. I prefer to buy the music and own a copy and support the artist in question. They deserve my support for their work, and I just feel like streaming isn't it. Besides, it saves an awful lot of money for wifi access on flights. ;)

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: summerholly on February 22, 2018, 04:49:01 PM

I only have satellite internet which is expensive and data limited so streaming is not really an option for me. I can buy digital music though. I also believe that an artist needs to be paid for their work and creativity or it can surely only be detrimental to music in the long run.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: JonD on February 22, 2018, 05:20:47 PM

As a later 40ís U2 fan (yikes that sounds old ! Lol) I use the following tiered system for new releases:

Reissues or purchases of classic albums (especially 1st prints) of bands such as REM, LED Zeppelin, or Pink Floyd)- often bought/kept them in vinyl and CD

1. New Vinyl/CD worthy- new U2, many Radiohead albums or other releases (eg. loved both Gallagher albums) that are outstanding- keeps me young. ;)

2. I TUNES- albums I like but arenít ďvinyl worthyĒ of a physical copy (last 2 Coldplay)

3. Stream everything else.

Consequently I have found that my music purchases have been reduced a lot but not completely. If anything I feel more excited when ďvinyl worthyĒ happpens.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: radiofreenewport on February 23, 2018, 04:42:49 AM

I once swore I would always stick with CDs and never buy music directly in digital form unless I just wanted a specific song. Now, I'm all about buying digital copies of things (it was actually the availability of U2 deluxe editions on sale around the release of TJT30 that inspired it). I tried a little bit of streaming, but honestly, it really isn't for me unless I'm entertaining people. I prefer to buy the music and own a copy and support the artist in question. They deserve my support for their work, and I just feel like streaming isn't it. Besides, it saves an awful lot of money for wifi access on flights. ;)

It's CDs and downloads for me. I like streaming for exploring new music, but I don't think it's something I can every rely solely on for listening. Not just for Internet data purposes, but because I like having some sort of copy that I own and something to play when there's no Internet connection!

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: 73October on February 23, 2018, 03:38:58 PM

Guitar bands are out of fashion. It's pop, R n B and EDM these days with a bit of hip hop/grime thrown in for good measure. That may also account for some of U2's sales recently. Metallica are now a novelty rock act. The rock oriented kids like them like Guns N Roses. U2 are unfashionable.Do I care? No, of course not!

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 23, 2018, 04:18:15 PM

That's only for the specific charts that include streaming. Not all of Billboards charts include streaming. The chart above is the Billboard 200 album chart that has always been in use until a couple of years ago. Its still posted, but just not as the main billboard 200 chart which includes streaming and individual track purchases. On that chart, U2's album is not even charted, because U2 has very low streaming and individual track purchases.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: iced on February 24, 2018, 04:33:26 AM

A flop is a flop.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 24, 2018, 08:06:31 AM

Its a flop when it comes to streaming, individual track sales, and radio airplay so far. But these album sales in 2018 are actually not that bad. Selling just 500,000 copies of an album these days in the USA could put you in the top 10 best selling albums of the year. While Songs Of Experience has only sold 25,000 copies since January 1, 2018, that still puts in the top 40 best selling albums of 2018 to this point.

The question now is how long can the album hold on? Will any songs from the album be able to break out and get noticed? Will the tour this summer help at all? Will the band receive any Grammy nominations at the end of the year? Its too early to fully assess what this album might do.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: McSwilly on February 24, 2018, 04:14:37 PM

If you subtract copies "sold" as part of ticket purchases, it is a total flop.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Starfish on February 25, 2018, 11:37:17 AM

Streaming is definitely a big factor. All my kids stream music on their phones, one has a bunch of digital albums purchased, but the other two own maybe 5 CDs total between the two of them.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: radiofreenewport on February 25, 2018, 11:40:24 AM

That's only for the specific charts that include streaming. Not all of Billboards charts include streaming. The chart above is the Billboard 200 album chart that has always been in use until a couple of years ago. Its still posted, but just not as the main billboard 200 chart which includes streaming and individual track purchases. On that chart, U2's album is not even charted, because U2 has very low streaming and individual track purchases.

Good to know, thanks. I thought all of their charts included streaming now.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 25, 2018, 02:12:03 PM

If you subtract copies "sold" as part of ticket purchases, it is a total flop.

Just because one purchased a ticket does not mean one got the album. You had to purchase a ticket and then specifically select the option to receive the album. I'm assuming most did not because it was an extra thing to do and it only gave you the basic album without the additional tracks like "Book Of Your Heart" "Ordinary Love" "Lights Of Home remix" and "Your The best Thing About Me" remix.

Lots of artist add this as an option including Metallica. The impact varies depending on the process, number tickets being sold, and whether the customer is receiving the full album with all tracks as opposed to some edited version which the U2 deal gave you.

Regardless, this is a great album, and U2 fans who have not taken notice or barely listened to the album are missing out, as our casual fans and the general public thanks to radio stations ignoring it.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 25, 2018, 02:15:07 PM

That's only for the specific charts that include streaming. Not all of Billboards charts include streaming. The chart above is the Billboard 200 album chart that has always been in use until a couple of years ago. Its still posted, but just not as the main billboard 200 chart which includes streaming and individual track purchases. On that chart, U2's album is not even charted, because U2 has very low streaming and individual track purchases.

Good to know, thanks. I thought all of their charts included streaming now.

The Official Billboard 200 does use streaming and has been in use for a couple of years now. But they still keep the old chart running which is where these results come from.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 25, 2018, 02:21:50 PM

Streaming is definitely a big factor. All my kids stream music on their phones, one has a bunch of digital albums purchased, but the other two own maybe 5 CDs total between the two of them.

Unfortunately for U2, their streaming figures are very low. The official Billboard 200, which includes streaming and digital track downloads, does not even have the album charted. It would be great if a lot of the fanbase was streaming instead of buying the album, but the numbers don't seem to show that. Perhaps some fans are listening to the album in ways that are not currently being tracked. I'm not sure about that though.

In any event, U2 needs a song from this album to somehow break through to the masses or get some grammy award nominations at the end of the year. Otherwise the sales will continue to trickle down and the album will not sell a lot more than it has already.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 26, 2018, 10:21:10 AM

Songs Of Experience drops from #84 to #114 on this weeks chart selling 1,730 copies. After 12 weeks, sales in the United States stand at 274,018.

Title: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wik73 on February 26, 2018, 07:26:43 PM

Had vinyl night with an old buddy this past weekend. The new album was cut off after a couple songs. It just never held our attention. Afterwards, I realized This spoke volumes about the quality of this album. I really tried to like it but it just doesnít have the tunes. This is why many, even long time fans, have no idea a new album is out. Quality and promotion seem to have killed SOE before it ever began.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 26, 2018, 11:16:08 PM

Had vinyl night with an old buddy this past weekend. The new album was cut off after a couple songs. It just never held our attention. Afterwards, I realized This spoke volumes about the quality of this album. I really tried to like it but it just doesnít have the tunes. This is why many, even long time fans, have no idea a new album is out. Quality and promotion seem to have killed SOE before it ever began.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The album is great. I have read though that some older people tend to have trouble listening or liking new music. As you get older, something in the brain prefers what is familiar and makes it more difficult to like new music. I'm not saying this is the case for you, but it is something to think about with the average U2 fans being between the ages of 41 to 55.

People need to give the album a chance. Play it like you did Achtung Baby or the Joshua Tree the first time. It certainly took more than a few listens before most completely fell in love with those albums. Its fun listening to old familiar toons, but the the new ones are great if you give them a chance.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: BlueSquirrel on February 27, 2018, 05:33:32 AM

Yeah, I agree. It's really the kind of album which grows on you the more you listen to it.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wik73 on February 27, 2018, 11:16:27 AM

Had vinyl night with an old buddy this past weekend. The new album was cut off after a couple songs. It just never held our attention. Afterwards, I realized This spoke volumes about the quality of this album. I really tried to like it but it just doesnít have the tunes. This is why many, even long time fans, have no idea a new album is out. Quality and promotion seem to have killed SOE before it ever began.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The album is great. I have read though that some older people tend to have trouble listening or liking new music. As you get older, something in the brain prefers what is familiar and makes it more difficult to like new music. I'm not saying this is the case for you, but it is something to think about with the average U2 fans being between the ages of 41 to 55.

People need to give the album a chance. Play it like you did Achtung Baby or the Joshua Tree the first time. It certainly took more than a few listens before most completely fell in love with those albums. Its fun listening to old familiar toons, but the the new ones are great if you give them a chance.

Thatís interesting. So, maybe Iím just too old to appreciate it. I do listen to new music and some have on regular rotation. I will admit I donít have the time to put into music as I once did but I feel as though I found the juxtaposition found throughout Achtung Baby to be far more interesting than their current work. But to your point, maybe I just keep going back to whatís familiar.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on February 27, 2018, 03:42:00 PM

Had vinyl night with an old buddy this past weekend. The new album was cut off after a couple songs. It just never held our attention. Afterwards, I realized This spoke volumes about the quality of this album. I really tried to like it but it just doesnít have the tunes. This is why many, even long time fans, have no idea a new album is out. Quality and promotion seem to have killed SOE before it ever began.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The album is great. I have read though that some older people tend to have trouble listening or liking new music. As you get older, something in the brain prefers what is familiar and makes it more difficult to like new music. I'm not saying this is the case for you, but it is something to think about with the average U2 fans being between the ages of 41 to 55.

People need to give the album a chance. Play it like you did Achtung Baby or the Joshua Tree the first time. It certainly took more than a few listens before most completely fell in love with those albums. Its fun listening to old familiar toons, but the the new ones are great if you give them a chance.

Thatís interesting. So, maybe Iím just too old to appreciate it. I do listen to new music and some have on regular rotation. I will admit I donít have the time to put into music as I once did but I feel as though I found the juxtaposition found throughout Achtung Baby to be far more interesting than their current work. But to your point, maybe I just keep going back to whatís familiar.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its also possible that ones taste in music has changed which means it will take even more listens of the album before it starts to appeal to you. My best friend suggested that perhaps his taste in music had changed to explain his lack of enthusiasm about the new album, which he admits he has yet to listen to the whole thing.

I think Songs Of Experience is U2's 6th best album and I rate above such U2 classics as War and Boy.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Maximus on March 03, 2018, 08:25:57 AM

Had vinyl night with an old buddy this past weekend. The new album was cut off after a couple songs. It just never held our attention. Afterwards, I realized This spoke volumes about the quality of this album. I really tried to like it but it just doesnít have the tunes. This is why many, even long time fans, have no idea a new album is out. Quality and promotion seem to have killed SOE before it ever began.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The album is great. I have read though that some older people tend to have trouble listening or liking new music. As you get older, something in the brain prefers what is familiar and makes it more difficult to like new music. I'm not saying this is the case for you, but it is something to think about with the average U2 fans being between the ages of 41 to 55.

People need to give the album a chance. Play it like you did Achtung Baby or the Joshua Tree the first time. It certainly took more than a few listens before most completely fell in love with those albums. Its fun listening to old familiar toons, but the the new ones are great if you give them a chance.

Thatís interesting. So, maybe Iím just too old to appreciate it. I do listen to new music and some have on regular rotation. I will admit I donít have the time to put into music as I once did but I feel as though I found the juxtaposition found throughout Achtung Baby to be far more interesting than their current work. But to your point, maybe I just keep going back to whatís familiar.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its also possible that ones taste in music has changed which means it will take even more listens of the album before it starts to appeal to you. My best friend suggested that perhaps his taste in music had changed to explain his lack of enthusiasm about the new album, which he admits he has yet to listen to the whole thing.

I think Songs Of Experience is U2's 6th best album and I rate above such U2 classics as War and Boy.

Its really good, I like SOI a little better, but it's not better than War but better than boy

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 05, 2018, 03:08:39 PM

U2|SONGS OF EXPERIENCE ( 55) 3257

WOW, U2's album "Songs Of Experience" rises from #114 last week to #55 this week on a 88% sales increase! Last week the album sold 1730 in the United States and this week it sales 3257! A near doubling of sales from the previous week in the United States. GREAT SUCCESS! This is Songs Of Experience's 13th week on chart. Total sales now stand at 277,275 copies sold in the United States for "Songs Of Experience". That includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 06, 2018, 07:35:41 PM

WOW, U2's album "Songs Of Experience" rises from #114 last week to #55 this week on a 88% sales increase! Last week the album sold 1730 in the United States and this week it sales 3257! A near doubling of sales from the previous week in the United States. GREAT SUCCESS! This is Songs Of Experience's 13th week on chart. Total sales now stand at 277,275 copies sold in the United States for "Songs Of Experience". That includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Great news! What do you suppose accounts for it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 06, 2018, 11:39:36 PM

WOW, U2's album "Songs Of Experience" rises from #114 last week to #55 this week on a 88% sales increase! Last week the album sold 1730 in the United States and this week it sales 3257! A near doubling of sales from the previous week in the United States. GREAT SUCCESS! This is Songs Of Experience's 13th week on chart. Total sales now stand at 277,275 copies sold in the United States for "Songs Of Experience". That includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Great news! What do you suppose accounts for it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unsure, but its been suggested there may have been a delay in reporting album/ticket bundle sales to the chart and that this may have caused the sudden spike in sales.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: dirtdrybonesandstone on March 07, 2018, 08:14:12 AM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 07, 2018, 01:28:34 PM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

That's cool. Where do you live? I wonder if its a Golds Gym national or worldwide thing or if its just someone at your particular gym that likes the band. In any event, on a national level, the new album is not getting any significant airplay on the radio. No song has made the HOT 100 chart or even the "bubbling under chart" which is the 25 positions below #100 on the HOT 100. The bands streaming is very low especially their youtube streaming numbers for the new songs. There is not any significant individual digital track purchases either from the new album.

The only thing that has done reasonable well from a certain perspective are the album sales, which stand at 277,000+ at the moment in the United States. In general selling 500,000 copies of album, includes both physical and digital sales, is enough to have one of the top 10 selling albums of the year now. So they have a bit of ways to go before they get there.

In general though, it seems at least 60% of people listening to music do it now through streaming, another 20% through individual track downloads, and the final 20% from album sales. So even if you are doing well with album sales, you still may not be that popular if your streaming is low and your individual track downloads are low. Its just the way it is now. The album sadly is no longer the chief barometer of success when it comes to recorded music. That now belongs to streaming individual songs.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Rasmus on March 07, 2018, 03:02:08 PM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

Same for me. I go to the gym 3 times a week and every single time since december I've heard "Your the Best Thing About Me" in the Kygo version. Its on constant rotation and its nice to work out with Bono's voice in the background ;D

Title: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 07, 2018, 09:57:49 PM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

That's cool. Where do you live? I wonder if its a Golds Gym national or worldwide thing or if its just someone at your particular gym that likes the band. In any event, on a national level, the new album is not getting any significant airplay on the radio. No song has made the HOT 100 chart or even the "bubbling under chart" which is the 25 positions below #100 on the HOT 100. The bands streaming is very low especially their youtube streaming numbers for the new songs. There is not any significant individual digital track purchases either from the new album.

The only thing that has done reasonable well from a certain perspective are the album sales, which stand at 277,000+ at the moment in the United States. In general selling 500,000 copies of album, includes both physical and digital sales, is enough to have one of the top 10 selling albums of the year now. So they have a bit of ways to go before they get there.

In general though, it seems at least 60% of people listening to music do it now through streaming, another 20% through individual track downloads, and the final 20% from album sales. So even if you are doing well with album sales, you still may not be that popular if your streaming is low and your individual track downloads are low. Its just the way it is now. The album sadly is no longer the chief barometer of success when it comes to recorded music. That now belongs to streaming individual songs.

Although no song may have reached the ďbubbling underĒ Iím assuming that uses the same measures as the Hot 100 which means streaming is included and we all know they do terrible in that area. In terms of radio airplay, Best Thing reached #122 in audience impressions, according to a thread I was following on another forum where some of the posters had access to radio stats.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 08, 2018, 07:43:09 AM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

That's cool. Where do you live? I wonder if its a Golds Gym national or worldwide thing or if its just someone at your particular gym that likes the band. In any event, on a national level, the new album is not getting any significant airplay on the radio. No song has made the HOT 100 chart or even the "bubbling under chart" which is the 25 positions below #100 on the HOT 100. The bands streaming is very low especially their youtube streaming numbers for the new songs. There is not any significant individual digital track purchases either from the new album.

The only thing that has done reasonable well from a certain perspective are the album sales, which stand at 277,000+ at the moment in the United States. In general selling 500,000 copies of album, includes both physical and digital sales, is enough to have one of the top 10 selling albums of the year now. So they have a bit of ways to go before they get there.

In general though, it seems at least 60% of people listening to music do it now through streaming, another 20% through individual track downloads, and the final 20% from album sales. So even if you are doing well with album sales, you still may not be that popular if your streaming is low and your individual track downloads are low. Its just the way it is now. The album sadly is no longer the chief barometer of success when it comes to recorded music. That now belongs to streaming individual songs.

Although no song may have reached the ďbubbling underĒ Iím assuming that uses the same measures as the Hot 100 which means streaming is included and we all know they do terrible in that area. In terms of radio airplay, Best Thing reached #122 in audience impressions, according to a thread I was following on another forum where some of the posters had access to radio stats.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Considering that a song like "Last Night On Earth" made it to #74 in radio only airplay back in 1997, #122 is not good. It may have made the bubbling under chart back when it was just radio and sales based, but just barley.

Outside the United States, things of have not been much better. "Best Thing...." made it to #24 in France, #48 in Switzerland and #66 in Ireland. U2 had top 10 hits in Ireland with every album until Songs Of Innocence and Songs Of Experience.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: paddyattitude on March 08, 2018, 09:29:52 AM

U2 has never had big Hits really outside a couple of songs off The Joshua Tree

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 08, 2018, 09:32:37 AM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

That's cool. Where do you live? I wonder if its a Golds Gym national or worldwide thing or if its just someone at your particular gym that likes the band. In any event, on a national level, the new album is not getting any significant airplay on the radio. No song has made the HOT 100 chart or even the "bubbling under chart" which is the 25 positions below #100 on the HOT 100. The bands streaming is very low especially their youtube streaming numbers for the new songs. There is not any significant individual digital track purchases either from the new album.

The only thing that has done reasonable well from a certain perspective are the album sales, which stand at 277,000+ at the moment in the United States. In general selling 500,000 copies of album, includes both physical and digital sales, is enough to have one of the top 10 selling albums of the year now. So they have a bit of ways to go before they get there.

In general though, it seems at least 60% of people listening to music do it now through streaming, another 20% through individual track downloads, and the final 20% from album sales. So even if you are doing well with album sales, you still may not be that popular if your streaming is low and your individual track downloads are low. Its just the way it is now. The album sadly is no longer the chief barometer of success when it comes to recorded music. That now belongs to streaming individual songs.

Although no song may have reached the ďbubbling underĒ Iím assuming that uses the same measures as the Hot 100 which means streaming is included and we all know they do terrible in that area. In terms of radio airplay, Best Thing reached #122 in audience impressions, according to a thread I was following on another forum where some of the posters had access to radio stats.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Considering that a song like "Last Night On Earth" made it to #74 in radio only airplay back in 1997, #122 is not good. It may have made the bubbling under chart back when it was just radio and sales based, but just barley.

Outside the United States, things of have not been much better. "Best Thing...." made it to #24 in France, #48 in Switzerland and #66 in Ireland. U2 had top 10 hits in Ireland with every album until Songs Of Innocence and Songs Of Experience.

I'm not saying #122 is good, I'm just offering some additional information. And the performance of Best Thing in those other countries isn't good compared to how U2 has done in the past, but it's not terrible. U2 is no longer at the top of the charts, that much is clear, but for a rock band that's pushing 60 they're still hanging on. What does radio airplay look like for other bands of their age and genre?

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 08, 2018, 02:05:36 PM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

That's cool. Where do you live? I wonder if its a Golds Gym national or worldwide thing or if its just someone at your particular gym that likes the band. In any event, on a national level, the new album is not getting any significant airplay on the radio. No song has made the HOT 100 chart or even the "bubbling under chart" which is the 25 positions below #100 on the HOT 100. The bands streaming is very low especially their youtube streaming numbers for the new songs. There is not any significant individual digital track purchases either from the new album.

The only thing that has done reasonable well from a certain perspective are the album sales, which stand at 277,000+ at the moment in the United States. In general selling 500,000 copies of album, includes both physical and digital sales, is enough to have one of the top 10 selling albums of the year now. So they have a bit of ways to go before they get there.

In general though, it seems at least 60% of people listening to music do it now through streaming, another 20% through individual track downloads, and the final 20% from album sales. So even if you are doing well with album sales, you still may not be that popular if your streaming is low and your individual track downloads are low. Its just the way it is now. The album sadly is no longer the chief barometer of success when it comes to recorded music. That now belongs to streaming individual songs.

Although no song may have reached the ďbubbling underĒ Iím assuming that uses the same measures as the Hot 100 which means streaming is included and we all know they do terrible in that area. In terms of radio airplay, Best Thing reached #122 in audience impressions, according to a thread I was following on another forum where some of the posters had access to radio stats.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Considering that a song like "Last Night On Earth" made it to #74 in radio only airplay back in 1997, #122 is not good. It may have made the bubbling under chart back when it was just radio and sales based, but just barley.

Outside the United States, things of have not been much better. "Best Thing...." made it to #24 in France, #48 in Switzerland and #66 in Ireland. U2 had top 10 hits in Ireland with every album until Songs Of Innocence and Songs Of Experience.

I'm not saying #122 is good, I'm just offering some additional information. And the performance of Best Thing in those other countries isn't good compared to how U2 has done in the past, but it's not terrible. U2 is no longer at the top of the charts, that much is clear, but for a rock band that's pushing 60 they're still hanging on. What does radio airplay look like for other bands of their age and genre?

Off the top of my head, not good. Rock as a genre is out of style and that includes soft rock, rock, pop rock, hard rock, heavy metal, speed metal etc.

Bands and groups are also not in style in terms of the number of them out there these days.

Most artist that are successful are in their 20s, some in their 30s. Above 40 and making it into the top 50 radio songs is rare.

As for people U2's age, I don't have figures off the top of my head. But there are still artist a lot older than U2 that record new songs and tour, but they don't seem to be making a dent on the charts.

You could say U2 were defying their age back in 00s by having hits and big selling albums then. Given that they defied the trend then, one wonders why it can't be done now.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 08, 2018, 02:11:13 PM

These songs were all huge hits around the world, not just as singles, but in terms of generating album sales and turnning out people to concerts.

The band need another Beautiful Day or Vertigo.

Outside Desire were they number 1?i don't think sofor me a hit has to be number 1 at some point

U2 have always been more of an album band than a singles band, but they've had quite a few hit singles, esp. outside the U.S. The U2 Discography article on wikipedia counts them up for a number of countries. To be sure, these are career totals.

I don’t know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

That's cool. Where do you live? I wonder if its a Golds Gym national or worldwide thing or if its just someone at your particular gym that likes the band. In any event, on a national level, the new album is not getting any significant airplay on the radio. No song has made the HOT 100 chart or even the "bubbling under chart" which is the 25 positions below #100 on the HOT 100. The bands streaming is very low especially their youtube streaming numbers for the new songs. There is not any significant individual digital track purchases either from the new album.

The only thing that has done reasonable well from a certain perspective are the album sales, which stand at 277,000+ at the moment in the United States. In general selling 500,000 copies of album, includes both physical and digital sales, is enough to have one of the top 10 selling albums of the year now. So they have a bit of ways to go before they get there.

In general though, it seems at least 60% of people listening to music do it now through streaming, another 20% through individual track downloads, and the final 20% from album sales. So even if you are doing well with album sales, you still may not be that popular if your streaming is low and your individual track downloads are low. Its just the way it is now. The album sadly is no longer the chief barometer of success when it comes to recorded music. That now belongs to streaming individual songs.

Although no song may have reached the “bubbling under” I’m assuming that uses the same measures as the Hot 100 which means streaming is included and we all know they do terrible in that area. In terms of radio airplay, Best Thing reached #122 in audience impressions, according to a thread I was following on another forum where some of the posters had access to radio stats.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Considering that a song like "Last Night On Earth" made it to #74 in radio only airplay back in 1997, #122 is not good. It may have made the bubbling under chart back when it was just radio and sales based, but just barley.

Outside the United States, things of have not been much better. "Best Thing...." made it to #24 in France, #48 in Switzerland and #66 in Ireland. U2 had top 10 hits in Ireland with every album until Songs Of Innocence and Songs Of Experience.

I'm not saying #122 is good, I'm just offering some additional information. And the performance of Best Thing in those other countries isn't good compared to how U2 has done in the past, but it's not terrible. U2 is no longer at the top of the charts, that much is clear, but for a rock band that's pushing 60 they're still hanging on. What does radio airplay look like for other bands of their age and genre?

Off the top of my head, not good. Rock as a genre is out of style and that includes soft rock, rock, pop rock, hard rock, heavy metal, speed metal etc.

Bands and groups are also not in style in terms of the number of them out there these days.

Most artist that are successful are in their 20s, some in their 30s. Above 40 and making it into the top 50 radio songs is rare.

As for people U2's age, I don't have figures off the top of my head. But there are still artist a lot older than U2 that record new songs and tour, but they don't seem to be making a dent on the charts.

You could say U2 were defying their age back in 00s by having hits and big selling albums then. Given that they defied the trend then, one wonders why it can't be done now.

I wonder that too. I think there are songs on SOE that should be hits, but then they haven't released the best ones as singles. Red Flag Day, for example, I think should be a big hit. But what do I know? I'm old, so my ear isn't tuned to what makes for a modern pop hit. In fact I don't much like a lot of modern pop.

Still, I wonder if radio stations aren't even giving these songs a chance because of the age of the band. How do stations decide which songs to play anyway? And how do kids decide which songs to stream? They have to know the song is out there first.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: BlueSquirrel on March 08, 2018, 03:36:28 PM

Quote

Off the top of my head, not good. Rock as a genre is out of style and that includes soft rock, rock, pop rock, hard rock, heavy metal, speed metal etc.

I don't know. Muse's tickets are the most sought after where I live. And their songs are still broadcast by radios.

Quote

Quote from: wons on Today at 02:11:13 PM

Quote from: paddyattitude on Today at 09:29:52 AM

U2 has never had big Hits really outside a couple of songs off The Joshua Tree

These songs were all huge hits around the world, not just as singles, but in terms of generating album sales and turning out people to concerts.

The band need another Beautiful Day or Vertigo.

Don't forget songs from War. New Year's Day and Sunday Bloody Sunday are still played by radios here. Last week, I worked from home for an entire day. I switched from station to station. I heard about ten U2 songs (NYD, SBS, One, You're the best thing, Every breaking wave, Beautiful Day, Staring at the sun, Stuck in a moment, Streets, I've still haven't found).

Other songs were huge hits as well (I'm thinking about Stay, Ordinary love, Sweetest thing or City of blinding lights for instance).

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: BlueSquirrel on March 08, 2018, 04:06:48 PM

Quote

Quote from: Luzita on March 06, 2018, 07:35:41 PM

Quote from: wons on March 05, 2018, 03:08:39 PM

U2|SONGS OF EXPERIENCE ( 55) 3257

WOW, U2's album "Songs Of Experience" rises from #114 last week to #55 this week on a 88% sales increase! Last week the album sold 1730 in the United States and this week it sales 3257! A near doubling of sales from the previous week in the United States. GREAT SUCCESS! This is Songs Of Experience's 13th week on chart. Total sales now stand at 277,275 copies sold in the United States for "Songs Of Experience". That includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Great news! What do you suppose accounts for it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unsure, but its been suggested there may have been a delay in reporting album/ticket bundle sales to the chart and that this may have caused the sudden spike in sales.

Could there be a "promo" effect? I'm thinking about the Grammy ceremony on tv.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: summerholly on March 08, 2018, 04:15:55 PM

These songs were all huge hits around the world, not just as singles, but in terms of generating album sales and turnning out people to concerts.

The band need another Beautiful Day or Vertigo.

Outside Desire were they number 1?i don't think sofor me a hit has to be number 1 at some point

Someone gave me a big boxed set of number one hits from the eighties and nineties and to be honest there were only a handful of songs on there that I liked the rest were awful and I never listen to them. I didn't like them then and I dislike them even more now. The albums that I have collected over the years were definitely not a reflection of what was in that boxed set.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: dirtdrybonesandstone on March 08, 2018, 04:58:21 PM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

That's cool. Where do you live? I wonder if its a Golds Gym national or worldwide thing or if its just someone at your particular gym that likes the band. In any event, on a national level, the new album is not getting any significant airplay on the radio. No song has made the HOT 100 chart or even the "bubbling under chart" which is the 25 positions below #100 on the HOT 100. The bands streaming is very low especially their youtube streaming numbers for the new songs. There is not any significant individual digital track purchases either from the new album.

The only thing that has done reasonable well from a certain perspective are the album sales, which stand at 277,000+ at the moment in the United States. In general selling 500,000 copies of album, includes both physical and digital sales, is enough to have one of the top 10 selling albums of the year now. So they have a bit of ways to go before they get there.

In general though, it seems at least 60% of people listening to music do it now through streaming, another 20% through individual track downloads, and the final 20% from album sales. So even if you are doing well with album sales, you still may not be that popular if your streaming is low and your individual track downloads are low. Its just the way it is now. The album sadly is no longer the chief barometer of success when it comes to recorded music. That now belongs to streaming individual songs.

Metro St Louis. Have noticed this at two of their local locations.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: dirtdrybonesandstone on March 08, 2018, 05:01:14 PM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

Same for me. I go to the gym 3 times a week and every single time since december I've heard "Your the Best Thing About Me" in the Kygo version. Its on constant rotation and its nice to work out with Bono's voice in the background ;D

Yea, thankfully the Kygo version is what they are playing here as well. I donít care for the other one. Have also heard The Blackout multiple times, among others.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 08, 2018, 05:41:10 PM

These songs were all huge hits around the world, not just as singles, but in terms of generating album sales and turning out people to concerts.

The band need another Beautiful Day or Vertigo.

Don't forget songs from War. New Year's Day and Sunday Bloody Sunday are still played by radios here. Last week, I worked from home for an entire day. I switched from station to station. I heard about ten U2 songs (NYD, SBS, One, You're the best thing, Every breaking wave, Beautiful Day, Staring at the sun, Stuck in a moment, Streets, I've still haven't found).

Other songs were huge hits as well (I'm thinking about Stay, Ordinary love, Sweetest thing or City of blinding lights for instance).

Where is here?

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: dirtdrybonesandstone on March 08, 2018, 07:37:33 PM

These songs were all huge hits around the world, not just as singles, but in terms of generating album sales and turnning out people to concerts.

The band need another Beautiful Day or Vertigo.

Outside Desire were they number 1?i don't think sofor me a hit has to be number 1 at some point

That's way to narrow a definition for a hit. Generally, the industry starts to consider songs that make the top 40 to be hits. Without a doubt top 20 and top 10 songs are considered hits. Plus, its not just where the song ends up on the singles chart, but what the song does for the album it came from and for ticket sales as well.

As for #1's, With Or Without You was #1 for 3 weeks in the United States, and I Still haven't Found.. was #1 for two weeks in the United States.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 09, 2018, 12:29:40 AM

Good to know that Rock n' Roll is still alive and well in France. In the United States, its disappearing compared to where it used to be. In the 1980s, Rock music and Rock Bands were a huge part of the music market in the United States. The decline for Rock in the United States started after the Grunge movement ended in 1996.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 09, 2018, 12:36:13 AM

U2 has never had big Hits really outside a couple of songs off The Joshua Tree

Hard to imagine that Pride wasnít a Ďhití, but radio at the time just wasnít ready for it. That song was huge, and no doubt set the stage for what came after.

In the United States it made it to #33. Generally the bare minimum to be considered a hit in the United States is making it into the top 40. Still, some people don't think of a song that only makes it to #33 to be a hit. There were still people in the industry who did not know who U2 were back in 1985, believe it or not, despite having a top 40 hit and a huge soldout arena tour of the United States. That arena tour in 1984/1985 soldout 5 arena shows in the New York City area and 6 arena shows in the Los Angeles City area, something that Motley Crue were never able to do at any point in their career. U2 had a HUGE concert following by 1985, despite no hits or just one hit with Pride.

Sunday Bloody Sunday never made the HOT 100 in the United States. New Years Day only made it to #53. Its after U2 became MEGA popular in 1987 with the Joshua Tree that radio, especially classic rock radio would start to reach back and play songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday and New Years Day.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 09, 2018, 12:37:28 AM

WOW, U2's album "Songs Of Experience" rises from #114 last week to #55 this week on a 88% sales increase! Last week the album sold 1730 in the United States and this week it sales 3257! A near doubling of sales from the previous week in the United States. GREAT SUCCESS! This is Songs Of Experience's 13th week on chart. Total sales now stand at 277,275 copies sold in the United States for "Songs Of Experience". That includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Great news! What do you suppose accounts for it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unsure, but its been suggested there may have been a delay in reporting album/ticket bundle sales to the chart and that this may have caused the sudden spike in sales.

Could there be a "promo" effect? I'm thinking about the Grammy ceremony on tv.

That was several weeks earlier and already showed up as a 600+ increase in album sales.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: dirtdrybonesandstone on March 09, 2018, 09:23:07 AM

Streaming is definitely a big factor. All my kids stream music on their phones, one has a bunch of digital albums purchased, but the other two own maybe 5 CDs total between the two of them.

Unfortunately for U2, their streaming figures are very low. The official Billboard 200, which includes streaming and digital track downloads, does not even have the album charted. It would be great if a lot of the fanbase was streaming instead of buying the album, but the numbers don't seem to show that. Perhaps some fans are listening to the album in ways that are not currently being tracked. I'm not sure about that though.

In any event, U2 needs a song from this album to somehow break through to the masses or get some grammy award nominations at the end of the year. Otherwise the sales will continue to trickle down and the album will not sell a lot more than it has already.

Itís unfortunate that it isnít getting noticed as it deserves. LIBTAIIW is song of the year material without a doubt but it wonít get a nod without getting air play.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 09, 2018, 03:13:06 PM

I donít know what to make of the success or non-success of SOE. I hit the gym every day and without exception, a track from SOE is playing on the sound system or video monitors. I suppose they could be paying Golds to be included?

That's cool. Where do you live? I wonder if its a Golds Gym national or worldwide thing or if its just someone at your particular gym that likes the band. In any event, on a national level, the new album is not getting any significant airplay on the radio. No song has made the HOT 100 chart or even the "bubbling under chart" which is the 25 positions below #100 on the HOT 100. The bands streaming is very low especially their youtube streaming numbers for the new songs. There is not any significant individual digital track purchases either from the new album.

The only thing that has done reasonable well from a certain perspective are the album sales, which stand at 277,000+ at the moment in the United States. In general selling 500,000 copies of album, includes both physical and digital sales, is enough to have one of the top 10 selling albums of the year now. So they have a bit of ways to go before they get there.

In general though, it seems at least 60% of people listening to music do it now through streaming, another 20% through individual track downloads, and the final 20% from album sales. So even if you are doing well with album sales, you still may not be that popular if your streaming is low and your individual track downloads are low. Its just the way it is now. The album sadly is no longer the chief barometer of success when it comes to recorded music. That now belongs to streaming individual songs.

Metro St Louis. Have noticed this at two of their local locations.

I use to work out at Golds in Fenton

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: HolyHandGrenade on March 10, 2018, 12:01:36 AM

THRILLER peaking at #4 in the US is proof enough that "only #1 counts" is objectively stupid.

3/3/84

1. Jump - Van Halen

2. 99 Luftballoons - Nena (peaked at #2)

3. Girls Just Want To Have Fun - Cyndi Lauper (peaked at #2 a week later)

4. Thriller - Michael Jackson

-

Also, not liking an album can't just be explained away by age, that's a biased argument. I think among U2 fans the reception has been across the board among all demographics.

-

And unless I missed something, why is nobody talking about how most earnings come from touring+merch, not record sales? U2 isn't a charity case, and I won't treat them as such, but apart from that - low profit, high visibility, highly accessible media (streaming, but also social media) is literally a business model. It's the way to promote your content and brand, it bridges the gap between casual/new listeners not willing to pay $10+, and it's a hybrid of radio and traditional media sales. Maybe it's a tougher hill to climb, but you can't attack the consumers when it's the market that has evolved.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: iced on March 10, 2018, 05:25:47 AM

Anytime we debate "sales" and U2 is just a bad sign.

**Physical**Digital**Streaming

...

yeah, yeah, yeah

Who knows?Who cares?

Personally, I think the latest album felt kinda flat.

I keep thinking about that Grammy performance.

...There they were floating like a rock and drifting into a endless abyss full of history rock/pop hacks.

Nobody cared...

**commercial

Know one noticed.

**commercial

=cue peace/hate trump sign. <----

**commercial

Yea, that's great!

Even in it's weakest day, this forum here was so much more livid and vibrant than 2 or 3 years ago.

The shutdown was a flop.

...

Let's just be honest here...

Who cares about the @atu2 home page?

In 1996 it would have been kinda cool at 3 A.M. "surfing" on your Netscape browser.

I still want a follow-up to :

Achtung Baby, Zooropa and POP.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 10, 2018, 09:50:21 AM

Also, not liking an album can't just be explained away by age, that's a biased argument. I think among U2 fans the reception has been across the board among all demographics.

And unless I missed something, why is nobody talking about how most earnings come from touring+merch, not record sales? U2 isn't a charity case, and I won't treat them as such, but apart from that - low profit, high visibility, highly accessible media (streaming, but also social media) is literally a business model. It's the way to promote your content and brand, it bridges the gap between casual/new listeners not willing to pay $10+, and it's a hybrid of radio and traditional media sales. Maybe it's a tougher hill to climb, but you can't attack the consumers when it's the market that has evolved.

The reception to the album among U2 fans has been mostly positive. There are exceptions of course, and you are apparently one of them. As for how age factors into it, age doesnít apply to the U2 fan demographic because if you are a U2 fan that means you like the rock genre, duh. But it applies to the general population because rock music isnít as popular among younger people.

What you are missing is the conversation in this thread is not about earnings, it is about record sales, radio play, etc. as measures of how well the new album is getting out to people. If it were about earnings then U2 is doing more than fine because, yeah, touring+merch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 10, 2018, 10:00:34 AM

Also, not liking an album can't just be explained away by age, that's a biased argument. I think among U2 fans the reception has been across the board among all demographics.

And unless I missed something, why is nobody talking about how most earnings come from touring+merch, not record sales? U2 isn't a charity case, and I won't treat them as such, but apart from that - low profit, high visibility, highly accessible media (streaming, but also social media) is literally a business model. It's the way to promote your content and brand, it bridges the gap between casual/new listeners not willing to pay $10+, and it's a hybrid of radio and traditional media sales. Maybe it's a tougher hill to climb, but you can't attack the consumers when it's the market that has evolved.

The reception to the album among U2 fans has been mostly positive. There are exceptions of course, and you are apparently one of them. As for how age factors into it, age doesnít apply to the U2 fan demographic because if you are a U2 fan that means you like the rock genre, duh. But it applies to the general population because rock music isnít as popular among younger people.

What you are missing is the conversation in this thread is not about earnings, it is about record sales, radio play, etc. as measures of how well the new album is getting out to people. If it were about earnings then U2 is doing more than fine because, yeah, touring+merch.

Had vinyl night with an old buddy this past weekend. The new album was cut off after a couple songs. It just never held our attention. Afterwards, I realized This spoke volumes about the quality of this album. I really tried to like it but it just doesnít have the tunes. This is why many, even long time fans, have no idea a new album is out. Quality and promotion seem to have killed SOE before it ever began.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The album is great. I have read though that some older people tend to have trouble listening or liking new music. As you get older, something in the brain prefers what is familiar and makes it more difficult to like new music. I'm not saying this is the case for you, but it is something to think about with the average U2 fans being between the ages of 41 to 55.

People need to give the album a chance. Play it like you did Achtung Baby or the Joshua Tree the first time. It certainly took more than a few listens before most completely fell in love with those albums. Its fun listening to old familiar toons, but the the new ones are great if you give them a chance.

It just comes off as apologetic for the album. I think any music listener knows more listens can change an opinion, but more listens can also sour an opinion, and it's not just old people that have issues with it. And naturally the ones on @U2 will be more likely to praise it.

I actually DO like the album, but with what I was referring to - you can explain it away as being the promotion, but the fact is that young people could not care less about something as boring and vanilla as SOE. They do not care. Other artists with much less exposure than two appearances in one Grammys show have shot into popularity 10 times as easy. People here are assuming that with perfect promotion, maybe slightly better songs, better lyrics, radio airplay doing them a favor, etc... that there would be a hit, but that's still not guaranteed.

"it is about record sales, radio play, etc. as measures of how well the new album is getting out to people."

I addressed this... when you pivot from a priority on record sales to a priority on streams, retweets, and visibility, you are expecting a drop in one and a boost in the other. But here, SOE is lackluster on both accounts, and if anything, doing better in the metric that we shouldn't be worried about as much (the topic of this thread). Like I said, if they don't use those platforms, they'll have to be content with simply not being able to capture the demographics that only use those, or just don't care about dad rock.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 10, 2018, 12:52:23 PM

THRILLER peaking at #4 in the US is proof enough that "only #1 counts" is objectively stupid.

3/3/84

1. Jump - Van Halen

2. 99 Luftballoons - Nena (peaked at #2)

3. Girls Just Want To Have Fun - Cyndi Lauper (peaked at #2 a week later)

4. Thriller - Michael Jackson

-

Also, not liking an album can't just be explained away by age, that's a biased argument. I think among U2 fans the reception has been across the board among all demographics.

-

And unless I missed something, why is nobody talking about how most earnings come from touring+merch, not record sales?

Because this is not about the money being made, but how popular the band continue to be with the public or not. U2 made a ton of money on POPMART but it was widely perceived by many to be a failure, because the album sold poorly relative to Achtung Baby, and the band was playing lots of half empty stadiums. Yard stick of success was always "Album sales + concert ticket sales". In 2018, it appears that it is "streaming + concert ticket sales". U2 does really well at one, and poorly at the other. U2 don't want to be the Rolling Stones. They want to have the new music be accepted and loved by the public as they have done in the past. Lots of bands and artist make good money every year on the road playing their greatest hits, but U2 has never wanted to be in that group or forced to be in that group. Its what a lot of artist are forced into when their popularity starts to decline.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 10, 2018, 01:03:44 PM

Also, not liking an album can't just be explained away by age, that's a biased argument. I think among U2 fans the reception has been across the board among all demographics.

And unless I missed something, why is nobody talking about how most earnings come from touring+merch, not record sales? U2 isn't a charity case, and I won't treat them as such, but apart from that - low profit, high visibility, highly accessible media (streaming, but also social media) is literally a business model. It's the way to promote your content and brand, it bridges the gap between casual/new listeners not willing to pay $10+, and it's a hybrid of radio and traditional media sales. Maybe it's a tougher hill to climb, but you can't attack the consumers when it's the market that has evolved.

The reception to the album among U2 fans has been mostly positive. There are exceptions of course, and you are apparently one of them. As for how age factors into it, age doesnít apply to the U2 fan demographic because if you are a U2 fan that means you like the rock genre, duh. But it applies to the general population because rock music isnít as popular among younger people.

What you are missing is the conversation in this thread is not about earnings, it is about record sales, radio play, etc. as measures of how well the new album is getting out to people. If it were about earnings then U2 is doing more than fine because, yeah, touring+merch.

Had vinyl night with an old buddy this past weekend. The new album was cut off after a couple songs. It just never held our attention. Afterwards, I realized This spoke volumes about the quality of this album. I really tried to like it but it just doesnít have the tunes. This is why many, even long time fans, have no idea a new album is out. Quality and promotion seem to have killed SOE before it ever began.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The album is great. I have read though that some older people tend to have trouble listening or liking new music. As you get older, something in the brain prefers what is familiar and makes it more difficult to like new music. I'm not saying this is the case for you, but it is something to think about with the average U2 fans being between the ages of 41 to 55.

People need to give the album a chance. Play it like you did Achtung Baby or the Joshua Tree the first time. It certainly took more than a few listens before most completely fell in love with those albums. Its fun listening to old familiar toons, but the the new ones are great if you give them a chance.

It just comes off as apologetic for the album. I think any music listener knows more listens can change an opinion, but more listens can also sour an opinion, and it's not just old people that have issues with it. And naturally the ones on @U2 will be more likely to praise it.

I actually DO like the album, but with what I was referring to - you can explain it away as being the promotion, but the fact is that young people could not care less about something as boring and vanilla as SOE. They do not care. Other artists with much less exposure than two appearances in one Grammys show have shot into popularity 10 times as easy. People here are assuming that with perfect promotion, maybe slightly better songs, better lyrics, radio airplay doing them a favor, etc... that there would be a hit, but that's still not guaranteed.

"it is about record sales, radio play, etc. as measures of how well the new album is getting out to people."

I addressed this... when you pivot from a priority on record sales to a priority on streams, retweets, and visibility, you are expecting a drop in one and a boost in the other. But here, SOE is lackluster on both accounts, and if anything, doing better in the metric that we shouldn't be worried about as much (the topic of this thread). Like I said, if they don't use those platforms, they'll have to be content with simply not being able to capture the demographics that only use those, or just don't care about dad rock.

There is nothing more vanilla and bland than what gets played a lot on the radio today and the songs that make the top 10 and go to #1. All of the new album, "Songs Of Experience" is superior to this stuff which is why many believe that if people would give it a chance it would take off.

I know you don't like or love the album. But just because you rate the album lower than others does not mean that is why its not catching on with radio and the rest of the public. There is a lot of good music out there that does not make it into the mainstream. The reason it does not are more complex than ones simple opinion about whether it is good or not.

The metric of album sales until fairly recently was still the best metric for measuring the success of recorded music. Its only in the last 5 to 10 years that it has seriously declined. Despite this decline, I wouldn't say its an irrelevant metric yet, and the band is actually doing in ok to a degree with it still. Realize in this market its not really possible to sell a million copies of an album in the United States anymore with a few rare exceptions. Selling just 500,000 copies would be enough to give the band one of the top 10 selling albums of the year in the United States.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: HolyHandGrenade on March 10, 2018, 01:11:29 PM

There is nothing more vanilla and bland than what gets played a lot on the radio today and the songs that make the top 10 and go to #1. All of the new album, "Songs Of Experience" is superior to this stuff which is why many believe that if people would give it a chance it would take off.

I know you don't like or love the album. But just because you rate the album lower than others does not mean that is why its not catching on with radio and the rest of the public. There is a lot of good music out there that does not make it into the mainstream. The reason it does not are more complex than ones simple opinion about whether it is good or not.

The metric of album sales until fairly recently was still the best metric for measuring the success of recorded music. Its only in the last 5 to 10 years that it has seriously declined. Despite this decline, I wouldn't say its an irrelevant metric yet, and the band is actually doing in ok to a degree with it still. Realize in this market its not really possible to sell a million copies of an album in the United States anymore with a few rare exceptions. Selling just 500,000 copies would be enough to give the band one of the top 10 selling albums of the year in the United States.

I literally said I like the album. I just maybe have a better idea of what kind of generic pop people like now... it's not anything on SOE.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 10, 2018, 04:43:51 PM

There is nothing more vanilla and bland than what gets played a lot on the radio today and the songs that make the top 10 and go to #1. All of the new album, "Songs Of Experience" is superior to this stuff which is why many believe that if people would give it a chance it would take off.

I know you don't like or love the album. But just because you rate the album lower than others does not mean that is why its not catching on with radio and the rest of the public. There is a lot of good music out there that does not make it into the mainstream. The reason it does not are more complex than ones simple opinion about whether it is good or not.

The metric of album sales until fairly recently was still the best metric for measuring the success of recorded music. Its only in the last 5 to 10 years that it has seriously declined. Despite this decline, I wouldn't say its an irrelevant metric yet, and the band is actually doing in ok to a degree with it still. Realize in this market its not really possible to sell a million copies of an album in the United States anymore with a few rare exceptions. Selling just 500,000 copies would be enough to give the band one of the top 10 selling albums of the year in the United States.

I literally said I like the album. I just maybe have a better idea of what kind of generic pop people like now... it's not anything on SOE.

Maybe, but you could say the same thing in a way about the Joshua Tree and 1987. The Joshua Tree sounded different from a lot of the other popular singles and albums of 1987.

Title: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 10, 2018, 06:04:46 PM

Maybe, but you could say the same thing in a way about the Joshua Tree and 1987. The Joshua Tree sounded different from a lot of the other popular singles and albums of 1987.

Yes but different in a spectacular way. I was young back then and getting seriously tired of some of the music around at that stage. U2 songs were like a breath of fresh air, you couldn't help but be captivated by their sound. Edges guitar and Bonos vocals were like a beacon in the dark lol and they were all young and gorgeous which added to the appeal lol. I find SOE although not a bad album seems to blend in with the the rest.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 10, 2018, 08:24:37 PM

Maybe, but you could say the same thing in a way about the Joshua Tree and 1987. The Joshua Tree sounded different from a lot of the other popular singles and albums of 1987.

Yes but different in a spectacular way. I was young back then and getting seriously tired of some of the music around at that stage. U2 songs were like a breath of fresh air, you couldn't help but be captivated by their sound. Edges guitar and Bonos vocals were like a beacon in the dark lol and they were all young and gorgeous which added to the appeal lol. I find SOE although not a bad album seems to blend in with the the rest.

To me the sound of SOE does stand out from most of what I hear on the radio, but not as much as U2ís sound stood out back in the 80s, thatís true.

Itís funny you mention their appeal when they were young and gorgeous. I think that may be part of the barrier to U2 winning young fans. Lots of people follow an artist not only because of their music but also because they identify with the musician (or think theyíre sexy). It must be harder for young people to do that when the musicians are old enough to be their parents or maybe even their grandparents.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: summerholly on March 10, 2018, 08:58:01 PM

Maybe, but you could say the same thing in a way about the Joshua Tree and 1987. The Joshua Tree sounded different from a lot of the other popular singles and albums of 1987.

Yes but different in a spectacular way. I was young back then and getting seriously tired of some of the music around at that stage. U2 songs were like a breath of fresh air, you couldn't help but be captivated by their sound. Edges guitar and Bonos vocals were like a beacon in the dark lol and they were all young and gorgeous which added to the appeal lol. I find SOE although not a bad album seems to blend in with the the rest.

To me the sound of SOE does stand out from most of what I hear on the radio, but not as much as U2ís sound stood out back in the 80s, thatís true.

Itís funny you mention their appeal when they were young and gorgeous. I think that may be part of the barrier to U2 winning young fans. Lots of people follow an artist not only because of their music but also because they identify with the musician (or think theyíre sexy). It must be harder for young people to do that when the musicians are old enough to be their parents or maybe even their grandparents.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes that occurred to me, for young people the age and sex appeal is often quite a big factor. At that age I could still identify with legendary groups who were 10- 20 years older than me but 30 years older or more probably not so much. Although I did like Elvis at 30 years older! But U2 are coming up to 60 and although they still look good to me to a young person they would be pretty old! At 38-40 years older my young nieces think they are definitely in the dad category

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 11, 2018, 09:46:35 PM

Maybe, but you could say the same thing in a way about the Joshua Tree and 1987. The Joshua Tree sounded different from a lot of the other popular singles and albums of 1987.

Yes but different in a spectacular way. I was young back then and getting seriously tired of some of the music around at that stage. U2 songs were like a breath of fresh air, you couldn't help but be captivated by their sound. Edges guitar and Bonos vocals were like a beacon in the dark lol and they were all young and gorgeous which added to the appeal lol. I find SOE although not a bad album seems to blend in with the the rest.

To me the sound of SOE does stand out from most of what I hear on the radio, but not as much as U2ís sound stood out back in the 80s, thatís true.

Itís funny you mention their appeal when they were young and gorgeous. I think that may be part of the barrier to U2 winning young fans. Lots of people follow an artist not only because of their music but also because they identify with the musician (or think theyíre sexy). It must be harder for young people to do that when the musicians are old enough to be their parents or maybe even their grandparents.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes that occurred to me, for young people the age and sex appeal is often quite a big factor. At that age I could still identify with legendary groups who were 10- 20 years older than me but 30 years older or more probably not so much. Although I did like Elvis at 30 years older! But U2 are coming up to 60 and although they still look good to me to a young person they would be pretty old! At 38-40 years older my young nieces think they are definitely in the dad category

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono as underground alt rock pin up, c. 1980.

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono as full-blown rock star pin up, c. 1987.

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono in the early 2000s. Still looking good. This was the last period when U2 was consistently at the top of the charts and pulling in new young fans in droves. They were already in their 40s. As wons mentioned, for a rock band of that age to still be at the top of the music scene was bucking the norm.

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono recently. I love the guy but he's definitely showing his age. I don't think he's causing any teenage girls to swoon.

Maybe their age creates distance between them and young audiences. And their music doesn't sound like the current stuff because they are of a different era. But it's good music. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the new album could break through more than it has so far.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: imedi on March 12, 2018, 03:06:36 AM

Maybe, but you could say the same thing in a way about the Joshua Tree and 1987. The Joshua Tree sounded different from a lot of the other popular singles and albums of 1987.

Yes but different in a spectacular way. I was young back then and getting seriously tired of some of the music around at that stage. U2 songs were like a breath of fresh air, you couldn't help but be captivated by their sound. Edges guitar and Bonos vocals were like a beacon in the dark lol and they were all young and gorgeous which added to the appeal lol. I find SOE although not a bad album seems to blend in with the the rest.

To me the sound of SOE does stand out from most of what I hear on the radio, but not as much as U2ís sound stood out back in the 80s, thatís true.

Itís funny you mention their appeal when they were young and gorgeous. I think that may be part of the barrier to U2 winning young fans. Lots of people follow an artist not only because of their music but also because they identify with the musician (or think theyíre sexy). It must be harder for young people to do that when the musicians are old enough to be their parents or maybe even their grandparents.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes that occurred to me, for young people the age and sex appeal is often quite a big factor. At that age I could still identify with legendary groups who were 10- 20 years older than me but 30 years older or more probably not so much. Although I did like Elvis at 30 years older! But U2 are coming up to 60 and although they still look good to me to a young person they would be pretty old! At 38-40 years older my young nieces think they are definitely in the dad category

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono as underground alt rock pin up, c. 1980.

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono as full-blown rock star pin up, c. 1987.

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono in the early 2000s. Still looking good. This was the last period when U2 was consistently at the top of the charts and pulling in new young fans in droves. They were already in their 40s. As wons mentioned, for a rock band of that age to still be at the top of the music scene was bucking the norm.

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono recently. I love the guy but he's definitely showing his age. I don't think he's causing any teenage girls to swoon.

Maybe their age creates distance between them and young audiences. And their music doesn't sound like the current stuff because they are of a different era. But it's good music. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the new album could break through more than it has so far.

time waits for nobody not even u2 :(

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: summerholly on March 12, 2018, 05:54:39 AM

Time waits for nobody indeed, not even the gorgeous Bono! The young girls who I know like my nieces and friends daughters are more into Bruno Mars than Bono.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 12, 2018, 08:48:34 AM

Maybe, but you could say the same thing in a way about the Joshua Tree and 1987. The Joshua Tree sounded different from a lot of the other popular singles and albums of 1987.

Yes but different in a spectacular way. I was young back then and getting seriously tired of some of the music around at that stage. U2 songs were like a breath of fresh air, you couldn't help but be captivated by their sound. Edges guitar and Bonos vocals were like a beacon in the dark lol and they were all young and gorgeous which added to the appeal lol. I find SOE although not a bad album seems to blend in with the the rest.

To me the sound of SOE does stand out from most of what I hear on the radio, but not as much as U2ís sound stood out back in the 80s, thatís true.

Itís funny you mention their appeal when they were young and gorgeous. I think that may be part of the barrier to U2 winning young fans. Lots of people follow an artist not only because of their music but also because they identify with the musician (or think theyíre sexy). It must be harder for young people to do that when the musicians are old enough to be their parents or maybe even their grandparents.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes that occurred to me, for young people the age and sex appeal is often quite a big factor. At that age I could still identify with legendary groups who were 10- 20 years older than me but 30 years older or more probably not so much. Although I did like Elvis at 30 years older! But U2 are coming up to 60 and although they still look good to me to a young person they would be pretty old! At 38-40 years older my young nieces think they are definitely in the dad category

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono as underground alt rock pin up, c. 1980.

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono as full-blown rock star pin up, c. 1987.

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono in the early 2000s. Still looking good. This was the last period when U2 was consistently at the top of the charts and pulling in new young fans in droves. They were already in their 40s. As wons mentioned, for a rock band of that age to still be at the top of the music scene was bucking the norm.

visitors can't see pics , please You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login or You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login

Bono recently. I love the guy but he's definitely showing his age. I don't think he's causing any teenage girls to swoon.

Maybe their age creates distance between them and young audiences. And their music doesn't sound like the current stuff because they are of a different era. But it's good music. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the new album could break through more than it has so far.

I think Bono would look 10 years younger if he were clean shaven and got rid of the glasses.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: summerholly on March 12, 2018, 09:11:00 AM

Time waits for nobody indeed, not even the gorgeous Bono! The young girls who I know like my nieces and friends daughters are more into Bruno Mars than Bono.

Well, Bruno is a quarter of a century younger than Bono. Yet, because many women love wealth and status, there are a lot of older men out there that are still in the game.

Possibly but a stretch too far for the teenage and twenties girls that I know. Bono is simply older than some of their dads! I guess we were talking about the mainstream teenage and young woman population and what influences who they choose to listen to in their music and why and I suspect there are more fantasies going on around Bruno than Bono.

At that age the furthest thing from my mind was some old dude no matter how rich and famous he was. I was much more likely to fancy Bono or Jon Bon Jovi than Frank Sinatra and a lot of my girlfriends as teenagers had Bay City roller and Sean Cassidy posters in their rooms, definitely not old Frank!

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: summerholly on March 12, 2018, 09:20:04 AM

I think Bono would look 10 years younger if he were clean shaven and got rid of the glasses.

Maybe, maybe not, but really why would he care. If he needs to wear the glasses he is only damaging his health by not wearing them and not sure it would make any difference to picking up the teenage and young demographic. Having parents into U2 might be a greater influence

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 12, 2018, 01:14:01 PM

Time waits for nobody indeed, not even the gorgeous Bono! The young girls who I know like my nieces and friends daughters are more into Bruno Mars than Bono.

Well, Bruno is a quarter of a century younger than Bono. Yet, because many women love wealth and status, there are a lot of older men out there that are still in the game.

Possibly but a stretch too far for the teenage and twenties girls that I know. Bono is simply older than some of their dads! I guess we were talking about the mainstream teenage and young woman population and what influences who they choose to listen to in their music and why and I suspect there are more fantasies going on around Bruno than Bono.

At that age the furthest thing from my mind was some old dude no matter how rich and famous he was. I was much more likely to fancy Bono or Jon Bon Jovi than Frank Sinatra and a lot of my girlfriends as teenagers had Bay City roller and Sean Cassidy posters in their rooms, definitely not old Frank!

Well, I remember being in 6th grade and watching girls drool over pictures of Don Johnson and Phillip Michael Thomas of Miami Vice fame. 25 year age gap and these girls had not even reached their 13th birthday. Hell, Don and Phillip were approaching 40 by then.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 12, 2018, 01:16:44 PM

Getting back on topic we have some new album sales new for Songs Of Experience.

The album drops from #55 last week down to #130 with 1,657 copies sold. A big drop, but last week was probably a fluke anyway. Just some old album sale/ticket redemption numbers that got put in to last weeks chart probably.

Getting back on topic we have some new album sales new for Songs Of Experience.

The album drops from #55 last week down to #130 with 1,657 copies sold. A big drop, but last week was probably a fluke anyway. Just some old album sale/ticket redemption numbers that got put in to last weeks chart probably.

Time waits for nobody indeed, not even the gorgeous Bono! The young girls who I know like my nieces and friends daughters are more into Bruno Mars than Bono.

Well, Bruno is a quarter of a century younger than Bono. Yet, because many women love wealth and status, there are a lot of older men out there that are still in the game.

Possibly but a stretch too far for the teenage and twenties girls that I know. Bono is simply older than some of their dads! I guess we were talking about the mainstream teenage and young woman population and what influences who they choose to listen to in their music and why and I suspect there are more fantasies going on around Bruno than Bono.

At that age the furthest thing from my mind was some old dude no matter how rich and famous he was. I was much more likely to fancy Bono or Jon Bon Jovi than Frank Sinatra and a lot of my girlfriends as teenagers had Bay City roller and Sean Cassidy posters in their rooms, definitely not old Frank!

Well, I remember being in 6th grade and watching girls drool over pictures of Don Johnson and Phillip Michael Thomas of Miami Vice fame. 25 year age gap and these girls had not even reached their 13th birthday. Hell, Don and Phillip were approaching 40 by then.

Approaching 40 is very different to approaching 60! pretty sure they wouldn't have been drooling over a 60 yo Don! Never did get the the thing for Don lol

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 12, 2018, 06:04:53 PM

Getting back on topic we have some new album sales new for Songs Of Experience.

The album drops from #55 last week down to #130 with 1,657 copies sold. A big drop, but last week was probably a fluke anyway. Just some old album sale/ticket redemption numbers that got put in to last weeks chart probably.

Total sales after 14 weeks in the United States is 278,932. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

So these figures are actual album sales only, right? Whether physical or digital?

If we add in the stuff that gets counted for the Billboard 200, like digital single sales and streaming, do we know how much that adds to the total?

Yes.

Very little. U2 has very poor streaming and individual track sales. For example, the first week U2 sold 179,000 copies and with the extra streaming and digital track sales, that would only get it to 186,000 equivalent units. That's only 3.5% of the total. If that is the same rate now, then it would likely only add maybe 60 or 70 equivalent units. This is the reason that the album is no longer charting on the Billboard 200(that now counts streams and digital track sales), because its streams and digital track sales or so low. But I don't know the total for those equivalent units from streaming and digital tracks, but it is certain be a very small amount.

I'll add that I disagree with combining streaming and individual track sales to album sales. I think those things should be separate. The love of two popular songs does not mean people love the album that they come from.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 19, 2018, 11:52:48 AM

Thanks to the album/ticket bundle sales and the new shows in Omaha Nebraska and Uncasville CT, "Songs Of Experience" sales this week TRIPLE to almost 5,000 copies sold. The album vaults up from #130 to #35!

I noticed SOE has reappeared on the regular Billboard 200 (not sales only) at #140. Iím a little confused cause sales were higher last week so shouldnít it have appeared then?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong week. The week that its at #140 on the Billboard 200 (not sales only) is week 15, last weeks sales. The week 16 sales numbers just came in on Monday the 26th. The new Billboard 200 (not sales only) has not been released yet, but will be in the next day or two. Given the 50% drop in sales though, it will likely not be on that chart.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: ricebird5678 on March 26, 2018, 11:59:54 PM

Do you have total album sales worldwide?

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: paddyattitude on March 27, 2018, 06:16:07 AM

I'd say they are around 1 million copies worldwide

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: achtungx on March 27, 2018, 10:05:40 AM

Time waits for nobody indeed, not even the gorgeous Bono! The young girls who I know like my nieces and friends daughters are more into Bruno Mars than Bono.

Well, Bruno is a quarter of a century younger than Bono. Yet, because many women love wealth and status, there are a lot of older men out there that are still in the game.

Possibly but a stretch too far for the teenage and twenties girls that I know. Bono is simply older than some of their dads! I guess we were talking about the mainstream teenage and young woman population and what influences who they choose to listen to in their music and why and I suspect there are more fantasies going on around Bruno than Bono.

At that age the furthest thing from my mind was some old dude no matter how rich and famous he was. I was much more likely to fancy Bono or Jon Bon Jovi than Frank Sinatra and a lot of my girlfriends as teenagers had Bay City roller and Sean Cassidy posters in their rooms, definitely not old Frank!

Well, I remember being in 6th grade and watching girls drool over pictures of Don Johnson and Phillip Michael Thomas of Miami Vice fame. 25 year age gap and these girls had not even reached their 13th birthday. Hell, Don and Phillip were approaching 40 by then.

Approaching 40 is very different to approaching 60! pretty sure they wouldn't have been drooling over a 60 yo Don! Never did get the the thing for Don lol

I very clearly remember all the girls in my 7th grade class fawning over Sean Connery after his appearance in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" in 1989 at the age of 59. They squealed with delight at the sight of his bald head and gray beard.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 27, 2018, 10:50:50 AM

Global sales of SOE are at 1,130,000 according to Mediatraffic.

In the current music market thatís pretty good.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 27, 2018, 05:52:38 PM

Time waits for nobody indeed, not even the gorgeous Bono! The young girls who I know like my nieces and friends daughters are more into Bruno Mars than Bono.

Well, Bruno is a quarter of a century younger than Bono. Yet, because many women love wealth and status, there are a lot of older men out there that are still in the game.

Possibly but a stretch too far for the teenage and twenties girls that I know. Bono is simply older than some of their dads! I guess we were talking about the mainstream teenage and young woman population and what influences who they choose to listen to in their music and why and I suspect there are more fantasies going on around Bruno than Bono.

At that age the furthest thing from my mind was some old dude no matter how rich and famous he was. I was much more likely to fancy Bono or Jon Bon Jovi than Frank Sinatra and a lot of my girlfriends as teenagers had Bay City roller and Sean Cassidy posters in their rooms, definitely not old Frank!

Well, I remember being in 6th grade and watching girls drool over pictures of Don Johnson and Phillip Michael Thomas of Miami Vice fame. 25 year age gap and these girls had not even reached their 13th birthday. Hell, Don and Phillip were approaching 40 by then.

Approaching 40 is very different to approaching 60! pretty sure they wouldn't have been drooling over a 60 yo Don! Never did get the the thing for Don lol

I very clearly remember all the girls in my 7th grade class fawning over Sean Connery after his appearance in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" in 1989 at the age of 59. They squealed with delight at the sight of his bald head and gray beard.

I was just thinking, look at Donald Trump. Anderson Cooper interviewed that playmate Karen McDougal or whatever and she said she was madly in love with Trump and physically attracted to him in 2006/2007 when he was 60 and she was 35. She even said they were "intimate" on the first date.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 27, 2018, 08:07:18 PM

I suspect she was in love with his money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 27, 2018, 08:38:37 PM

Itís on the home page. Itís hard to see because, unless itís a Top 10 album, the data is all scrunched up in paragraph format. But they do include the next 40 also.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually counted 44 albums. 21 of them had sales less than Songs Of Experience. So if that is correct that would put Songs Of Experience at #33 for the week. On thing to remember though is that this chart includes individual track downloads and streaming. So U2's figure of 1,130,000 is actually not the total albums that were sold physically and digitally. That number would be a little lower than that.

By the way, this weeks number 1 on the billboard 200 did 130,000 equivalent units, the album "?" by XXXTentacion. Only 20,000 were digital or physical album sales and only 5,000 were from digital track downloads. The other 105,000 came from streaming. 157,500,000 streams, of songs from the album to be exact. The streaming alone was enough to place the album at #1, even though were just talking about streaming of individual tracks from the album primarily. So even if this album had only sold 5 copies, it would still be the #1 album. Just goes to show how crazy and absurd things are now.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: paddyattitude on March 29, 2018, 09:52:28 AM

well i don't know how they count streaming then cause on spotify alone each song from SOE has been played at least 2 or 3 million times with a peak at 14 millions with You're The Best Thing About Me (the last time i checked)

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 29, 2018, 10:36:57 AM

Mediatraffic.de Global Album Chart

Album Chartweek 12 / 2018 - March 24the most popular albums according to globalsales, paid download and streamingissue date: March 22, 2018copyright (C) 2018 - all rights reserved

I wonder why they only list the top 10 in order and then have a alphabetical listing for the rest of the albums they have sales for? They used to do the top 40. I went through and arranged everything in order based on their sales for the week. This list has 54 albums.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 29, 2018, 10:55:18 AM

well i don't know how they count streaming then cause on spotify alone each song from SOE has been played at least 2 or 3 million times with a peak at 14 millions with You're The Best Thing About Me (the last time i checked)

The 157,000,000 streams for XXXTenacion "?" or whatever his name is, is just ONE WEEK of streams and equates to 105,000 units or albums. The 50 million or so streams you refer to for U2's Songs Of Experience on Spotify would equate to only about 34,000 in album sales or equivalent units, and that is the total since U2's Songs Of Experience was released 16 weeks ago. That is not very good when it comes to streaming. In 16 weeks, U2's total Spotify total is less than 1/3 of what XXXTenacion did in just one week.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on March 29, 2018, 11:33:31 AM

There seems to be a problem with the Judas Priest entry. I noticed that on the site. It says sales for the week are 110,000 yet total sales are over 10 million even though the album has only been out a week. That's got to be a typo. They seem to have added three zeros to the number.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 29, 2018, 02:02:07 PM

There seems to be a problem with the Judas Priest entry. I noticed that on the site. It says sales for the week are 110,000 yet total sales are over 10 million even though the album has only been out a week. That's got to be a typo. They seem to have added three zeros to the number.

Yep that seems strange. I at first wondered if it was an old album making a sales surge, but its brand new. Second week on chart actually in the United States. About 58,000 copies sold in the United States physically and digitally so far. Global total is not more than 150,000. I think they will update it later this week correctly.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: paddyattitude on March 30, 2018, 04:54:12 AM

well i don't know how they count streaming then cause on spotify alone each song from SOE has been played at least 2 or 3 million times with a peak at 14 millions with You're The Best Thing About Me (the last time i checked)

The 157,000,000 streams for XXXTenacion "?" or whatever his name is, is just ONE WEEK of streams and equates to 105,000 units or albums. The 50 million or so streams you refer to for U2's Songs Of Experience on Spotify would equate to only about 34,000 in album sales or equivalent units, and that is the total since U2's Songs Of Experience was released 16 weeks ago. That is not very good when it comes to streaming. In 16 weeks, U2's total Spotify total is less than 1/3 of what XXXTenacion did in just one week.

alright cheers!I am not into streaming at all but i tried to check and compare with a few other artists on spotify and thought U2 were not doing that bad in terms of listens

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 30, 2018, 08:38:46 AM

well i don't know how they count streaming then cause on spotify alone each song from SOE has been played at least 2 or 3 million times with a peak at 14 millions with You're The Best Thing About Me (the last time i checked)

The 157,000,000 streams for XXXTenacion "?" or whatever his name is, is just ONE WEEK of streams and equates to 105,000 units or albums. The 50 million or so streams you refer to for U2's Songs Of Experience on Spotify would equate to only about 34,000 in album sales or equivalent units, and that is the total since U2's Songs Of Experience was released 16 weeks ago. That is not very good when it comes to streaming. In 16 weeks, U2's total Spotify total is less than 1/3 of what XXXTenacion did in just one week.

alright cheers!I am not into streaming at all but i tried to check and compare with a few other artists on spotify and thought U2 were not doing that bad in terms of listens

I think if you look at the catalog U2 does pretty well. But with the new music compared to new music by other artist, I think you would see a dramatic difference. Just looking at youtube which also counts towards streaming, the two recent hit songs by Imagine Dragons each have around 400 million views compared with only 10 million for "You're The Best Thing About Me".

Streaming is new, but its here to stay. In terms of how people listen to music, its at least 60% of the total now, if not more. Album purchases and digital track purchases make up the rest, but continue to decline. Were rapidly approaching a time when young people may not even know what an album is.

If you look at total views, to include U2's entire catalog, then I think U2 does better when it comes to streaming relative to other artist, but still they are not as high as they should be. Plus, whether your popular are not currently depends on your most recent music releases.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: paddyattitude on March 30, 2018, 10:50:08 AM

well i don't know how they count streaming then cause on spotify alone each song from SOE has been played at least 2 or 3 million times with a peak at 14 millions with You're The Best Thing About Me (the last time i checked)

The 157,000,000 streams for XXXTenacion "?" or whatever his name is, is just ONE WEEK of streams and equates to 105,000 units or albums. The 50 million or so streams you refer to for U2's Songs Of Experience on Spotify would equate to only about 34,000 in album sales or equivalent units, and that is the total since U2's Songs Of Experience was released 16 weeks ago. That is not very good when it comes to streaming. In 16 weeks, U2's total Spotify total is less than 1/3 of what XXXTenacion did in just one week.

alright cheers!I am not into streaming at all but i tried to check and compare with a few other artists on spotify and thought U2 were not doing that bad in terms of listens

I think if you look at the catalog U2 does pretty well. But with the new music compared to new music by other artist, I think you would see a dramatic difference. Just looking at youtube which also counts towards streaming, the two recent hit songs by Imagine Dragons each have around 400 million views compared with only 10 million for "You're The Best Thing About Me".

Streaming is new, but its here to stay. In terms of how people listen to music, its at least 60% of the total now, if not more. Album purchases and digital track purchases make up the rest, but continue to decline. Were rapidly approaching a time when young people may not even know what an album is.

If you look at total views, to include U2's entire catalog, then I think U2 does better when it comes to streaming relative to other artist, but still they are not as high as they should be. Plus, whether your popular are not currently depends on your most recent music releases.

i am not sure the number of hits is necessarily a sign for popularity especially for U2 as I believe the population listening to them does not use streaming much

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on March 30, 2018, 12:36:03 PM

well i don't know how they count streaming then cause on spotify alone each song from SOE has been played at least 2 or 3 million times with a peak at 14 millions with You're The Best Thing About Me (the last time i checked)

The 157,000,000 streams for XXXTenacion "?" or whatever his name is, is just ONE WEEK of streams and equates to 105,000 units or albums. The 50 million or so streams you refer to for U2's Songs Of Experience on Spotify would equate to only about 34,000 in album sales or equivalent units, and that is the total since U2's Songs Of Experience was released 16 weeks ago. That is not very good when it comes to streaming. In 16 weeks, U2's total Spotify total is less than 1/3 of what XXXTenacion did in just one week.

alright cheers!I am not into streaming at all but i tried to check and compare with a few other artists on spotify and thought U2 were not doing that bad in terms of listens

I think if you look at the catalog U2 does pretty well. But with the new music compared to new music by other artist, I think you would see a dramatic difference. Just looking at youtube which also counts towards streaming, the two recent hit songs by Imagine Dragons each have around 400 million views compared with only 10 million for "You're The Best Thing About Me".

Streaming is new, but its here to stay. In terms of how people listen to music, its at least 60% of the total now, if not more. Album purchases and digital track purchases make up the rest, but continue to decline. Were rapidly approaching a time when young people may not even know what an album is.

If you look at total views, to include U2's entire catalog, then I think U2 does better when it comes to streaming relative to other artist, but still they are not as high as they should be. Plus, whether your popular are not currently depends on your most recent music releases.

i am not sure the number of hits is necessarily a sign for popularity especially for U2 as I believe the population listening to them does not use streaming much

Well, you either have to stream it, digitally download individual tracks, buy the album physically or digitally, or obtain it for free through file sharing, CD burning, or some other free way of downloading it.

When it comes to streaming and digitally purchasing individual tracks, U2's numbers for the new album are tiny relative to other popular artist. So you would think then that millions of people are buying the album. But that's not the case. Current sales of the new album stand at only 287,000 copies in the United States and a little over 1 million worldwide. I think the best this album will do is 500,000 sold in the United States and 1.5 million worldwide. Those are small numbers compared to 10, 15, 20 or more years ago for U2.

Most people out there are streaming their music now. The next most popular thing to do is digital downloads of individual tracks through a service like I-tunes. Finally album sales are below that and dropping fast all across the industry. Its true, a lot of U2's fanbase that is still with the band still purchase the album, either physical or digital. But there must be a good portion who have simply gone to streaming all their music through a service like Spotify. Pop was considered a failure when it only sold 1.3 million copies in the United States in 1997. But today we have Songs of Experience and its at 287,000. Maybe it will make it to 500,000 eventually, but that is still only 1/3 of what Pop did in the United States. If its true that only the hardcore dedicated fans purchased Pop, then a lot of these fans must have switched to streaming because they are not buying the album either physically or digitally given that Songs Of Experience has only sold 287,000 copies in the United States so far.

Streaming is taking over everything. Total album sales continue to decline every year as are individual digital track purchases from stores like I-tunes. The option is just to attractive to most consumers. Pay $10 dollars a month and stream virtually any music you want that exist. Its the equivalent of putting a dime in a Juke Box 30 years ago and having access to all the music in the world for a full day, just on that one 10 cent dime.

Its terrible for the music business and the artist making music.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on April 02, 2018, 11:22:41 AM

This week, Songs of Experience falls from #63 to #115 on the Billboard 200 (album sales only) chart. It sold about 883 copies less than last week. This weeks sales were 1,882 copies sold in the United States, both physical and digital combined.

A new low has been set with this chart. Its the first time the #10 album only sold 7,047 copies. Its incredible that with sales of just 7,000 copies, you can now have a top 10 album. The #3 album only sold 12,349. It won't be long before we see a number 1 album with only 12,000 copies sold both physical and digital.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on April 09, 2018, 10:39:51 AM

In Songs of Experience's 18th week, the album falls from #115 to #170. This is its lowest position on the albums sales only chart to date. At 1,529 copies sold for the week, this is also it lowest weekly sales number to date.

That reminds me, I don't recall being offered the album when I bought concert tickets. Or was that offer just for I+E?

Nope its definitely for E&I tour and is helping to sell more copies of the album. Its possible you skipped by it when you were ordering tickets. It happens during the order and checkout process. Whenever you buy a U2 ticket for this tour, you get prompted to redeem your ticket for a U2 Songs Of Experience album either physical or digital, during the order and checkout process. I have purchased two tickets and received two physical albums in the mail. Its just the basic album though, which ends with the song "13" and does not include any of the extra tracks on the deluxe album.

Obviously, if you purchased a resell ticket, you would never see an option to get the new album.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: 73October on April 09, 2018, 01:04:46 PM

That reminds me, I don't recall being offered the album when I bought concert tickets. Or was that offer just for I+E?

Nope its definitely for E&I tour and is helping to sell more copies of the album. Its possible you skipped by it when you were ordering tickets. It happens during the order and checkout process. Whenever you buy a U2 ticket for this tour, you get prompted to redeem your ticket for a U2 Songs Of Experience album either physical or digital, during the order and checkout process. I have purchased two tickets and received two physical albums in the mail. Its just the basic album though, which ends with the song "13" and does not include any of the extra tracks on the deluxe album.

Obviously, if you purchased a resell ticket, you would never see an option to get the new album.

And U2 aren't the first artist to do this. I'm sure a few acts have done this. However, I don't recall it being the case in Europe.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: laoghaire on April 09, 2018, 01:59:59 PM

Damn, I would love a physical copy. I just bought it off of iTunes. Too bad I missed it when getting the tickets. I was probably overwhelmed with a bunch of options (not to mention the impulse nature of my purchase which definitely strains my budget!), plus I'm visually impaired.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on April 16, 2018, 12:51:20 PM

Songs Of Experience shoots back up from #170 last week to #124 this week on a 225 increase in sales from 1,529 to 1,754.

Total sales after 19 weeks in the United States is 291,778. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on April 27, 2018, 05:38:55 PM

The source that usually reports soundscan data did not have it this week. Songs Of Experience did not appear in the reported list of the Billboard 200, top albums sales only first 100 positions, and top current album sales first 100 positions. There is a chance though that it did sell enough to still make the top 200 albums giving it a 20th week on chart. Unless something changes though, will have to wait to see what data gets released next week.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: laoghaire on April 27, 2018, 05:55:21 PM

I think you can stop now. This is painful. Report back if you have any good news.

Is there any chance sales will pick up with the tour?... I guess I doubt it. Only the hard cores are going anyway. We already bought the album.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: ian ryan on April 27, 2018, 07:27:49 PM

Kind of connected: Worldwide SOE was the 6th best selling 2017 album, tied with Kendrick's "DAMN." It came out in December. That's pretty shocking/cool. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43877494

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on April 27, 2018, 08:05:14 PM

I think you can stop now. This is painful. Report back if you have any good news.

Is there any chance sales will pick up with the tour?... I guess I doubt it. Only the hard cores are going anyway. We already bought the album.

There is a chance it could pick up. There might be some last minute ticket buyers who will also choose to get the new album. The US leg though ends in early July. Unless the new single "Love Is Bigger Than Anything in its way" takes off where other singles have not, I'd say the album will definitely be gone by August or September. But, it could get another boost in November or December when Grammy nominations are announced.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: laoghaire on April 27, 2018, 08:21:07 PM

I mean, I don't know why I care. I really don't care a fig for their wallets. But I think the album is great and I think they are great, so it's just sad seeing their album disappear - and against such a thin field (ancient albums). I know it's gotta hurt.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on April 27, 2018, 08:30:55 PM

Kind of connected: Worldwide SOE was the 6th best selling 2017 album, tied with Kendrick's "DAMN." It came out in December. That's pretty shocking/cool. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-43877494

One thing you have to remember though is that most people who listen to Kendrick stream his music or purchase individual songs. Album sales are dying. This is the worst global top 10 for the year in album sales since the 1950s. Look at that top 10. The only band or group in the top 10 is U2. It appears U2 were the only band or group to sell 1 million PLUS copies of an album in 2017. The metric is still important for U2 since most of the people into the new album don't stream or purchase individual tracks from it. They buy the album. They are old hardcore fans.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Fastcars12 on April 28, 2018, 05:05:22 AM

I think you can stop now. This is painful. Report back if you have any good news.

Is there any chance sales will pick up with the tour?... I guess I doubt it. Only the hard cores are going anyway. We already bought the album.

No. Don't stop. I've been enjoying these updates and am curious to see if it picks up when the tour is underway.

Thanks for the updates Wons

I'll keep it up just because I'm naturally curious about U2's sales and this thread is a good place to compile and store this sales information. I think we should get sales information next week, but I don't know if will get information for this past weeks sales. That may remain a question mark, although we know it was lower than the previous weeks sales. There are actually two album charts that the album is on, one for rock albums and one for alternative albums. The album decline from the previous week on both charts.

On the Rock Album Sales chart, the album declined from #29 to #35. On the Alternative album sales chart the album decline from #14 to #16.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: ricebird5678 on April 28, 2018, 09:39:18 AM

Please do not stop. I enjoy the updates and am curious about how the tour starting will influence some to buy the album or not.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: laoghaire on April 28, 2018, 10:26:15 AM

I wasn't really objecting to your posts, Wons, sorry I phrased it that way. It's nice that you're doing it. I'm just griping.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on April 29, 2018, 08:46:16 AM

Ok, I got a very close estimate for sales this past week based on two exact figures reported for two other albums on the Rock album sales chart that are at #32 and #36. The number 32 album sold just over 1,400 and the number 36 album sold just under 1,200. So I would estimate that SONGS OF EXPERIENCE sold about 1,250 copies. As far as chart position, I think this means SONGS OF EXPERIENCE has dropped off the chart. In most recent weeks, the #200 album sold more than 1,250 copies. I think the tour and the new single "Love is bigger than anything in its way" will bring the album back onto the chart.

It is going to be difficult for the tour to give the album any bounce when they aren't playing some of the best songs from it. Really guys? Where in the hell is The Little Things?

The tour has not started yet. If your talking about rehearsals, then that should only be posted in the spoiler thread in the tour section. Personally I'm not looking at any rehearsal stuff or set-list when the tour starts. I want my first show on this tour to be a surprise.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on April 30, 2018, 09:50:39 PM

A big sales jump this week for the album as the tour is about to begin. Songs Of Experience sold 1,218 copies last week, but this week sees a big sales increase to 2,044 copies sold and a position of #151 on the Top 200 albums sales only chart.

It's interesting that Timberlake's album has only sold 500,000 copies -- hasn't been certified as a million-seller yet. So it's not just U2 that's seeing a dramatic drop-off in sales.

Actually his album has only sold 379,000 copies to date in the United States, both physical and digital copies. The other 162,000 come from streaming and individual digital track downloads. 1,500 streams of a song from the album equals one album sold. 10 individual track downloads equals 1 album sold. But it is the second biggest selling album since the start of the year in January, in the United States. It is the biggest selling album of the year to be released in 2018. But then again, were only 16 weeks into 2018, nearly 1/3 of the year.

Justin Timberlakes new album "Man of The Woods" has seen it sales cool down and was at #74 with 3,175 copies sold this week.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 07, 2018, 05:11:36 PM

So it appears that the start of the tour may have kept Songs Of Experience sales steady this week as it was able to sell 93 copies more than last week with a total of 2,137. By keeping its sales steady, its able to vault on the top 200 album sales chart from #151 to #85! Last week was record store week so a lot of albums were generating higher sales. Sales across the board are down this week, but it appears the start of the tour helped Songs Of Experience avoid that decline.

Total sales after 22 weeks in the United States is 297,177. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 15, 2018, 01:23:05 AM

Songs Of Experience this week rises on the chart to #67 from #85 and also sees a sales increase of nearly 700 copies. This is enough to finally put Songs Of Experience over the 300,000 in sales mark 23 weeks after release in the United States. Total sales in the United States are now 300,001, which includes both physical and digital copies.

Folks. I'm 34. I don't buy music. Its just a waste of money in general. I have an apple music account and listen to the album there. If I had money to burn, I might have a record player and get a copy. But I don't like collecting stuff anymore. So...thats a bit pointless too.

So no point looking at sales. I presume most people are like me. Look at streams mind you.

Unfortunately, based on youtube, U2's streams for their new music are very low. U2's best performance vs other artist recorded music is still with album sales despite how small the figures are compared to albums released years and decades ago.

On a side issue:

I understand your reasoning for you personally for not purchasing music, plus given what has happened with technology and the internet. But I think artist deserve to be paid for their work. When I purchased Achtung Baby On Compact Disc back in November 1991, it was $15.99 + whatever tax. Adjusted for inflation into 2018 prices, that is $29.21, + whatever tax. The artist deserve to be paid for their work and they used to be paid for their work.

Imagine suddenly not being paid for the work that you do, or only being paid a fraction, maybe 10% of what you used to be paid. How would that effect you and the others like you?

Despite what is fair, technology and the internet seem to have permanently ruined the fair payment of artist for their recorded work. Its just too easy to obtain the music for free thanks to technology and none of the attempts to redress the problem have worked. Plus it is now culturally ingrained that there is nothing wrong with not paying for recorded music.

They may deserve to be paid but how much? Your Achtung Baby example is not really relevant. Before the advent of recorded music, there were relatively few ďprofessionalĒ musicians. Most people who were entertained by music were entertained by music they made themselves or music that was made by their family and friends. The 1930s to the present-ish may be a brief period of time when a significant number of people could get filthy rich by making and selling recorded music, much as U2 has. Iím not sure that ever really made sense. It was an artifact of a publishing business model that is now being disrupted by technology. The era of dreaming of making it big in an all or nothing way is ending. On the other hand, there is perhaps more opportunity for a passionate musician to make a small or moderate living off live performances, merchandise, and streaming revenue. I realize the streaming model is not really doing much for any musicians right now but it may (hopefully) evolve to that point. Iím in my 50s and I really donít like collecting cluttering objects either. Its just so much paper and plastic waste.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: laoghaire on May 15, 2018, 11:51:56 AM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 15, 2018, 02:13:44 PM

This is the Soundscan chart that used to be the ONLY source for the Billboard 200 chart from 1991 until 2015. Billboard 200 still uses soundscan, but now they add in individual track downloads for individual songs, and streaming, primarily of individual songs. The Billboard 200 from 1955 through 2015 was based strictly on sales of the album. Since 2015 that is no longer the case and with the new Billboard 200 its possible to have a number 1 album without even selling a thousand copies which in my opinion is just wrong.

The most important thing I'm tracking here is the raw sales data of the album in the United States, both physical and digital copies. It just crossed the 300,000 mark, but they need to find a way to sell 200,000 more in order to get that GOLD Award for the album.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 15, 2018, 02:34:10 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

So when I say ďstreamingĒ Iím talking about a paid subscription service ($15/month). Not just streaming something on Youtube. I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing. I have 500 CDís taking up a chunk of space and no desire to go dig out what I want to hear, load it up in a CD player, and then watch that stack of CDs accumulate on the bookshelf until I finally go file them back away. Iím not trying to cheat musicianís out of their money. I just think physical media is an inferior way to own the right to listen to someoneís music, even if it did create a way for a small percentage of musicians to make huge amounts of money. All this to say that you canít compare todayís sales of SOE to sales of past albums. Thatís not the way that most people buy music these days.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: laoghaire on May 15, 2018, 02:47:39 PM

Fair enough. I think they get credit for that too, and they choose to offer their songs for streaming.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 15, 2018, 03:11:07 PM

Folks. I'm 34. I don't buy music. Its just a waste of money in general. I have an apple music account and listen to the album there. If I had money to burn, I might have a record player and get a copy. But I don't like collecting stuff anymore. So...thats a bit pointless too.

So no point looking at sales. I presume most people are like me. Look at streams mind you.

Unfortunately, based on youtube, U2's streams for their new music are very low. U2's best performance vs other artist recorded music is still with album sales despite how small the figures are compared to albums released years and decades ago.

On a side issue:

I understand your reasoning for you personally for not purchasing music, plus given what has happened with technology and the internet. But I think artist deserve to be paid for their work. When I purchased Achtung Baby On Compact Disc back in November 1991, it was $15.99 + whatever tax. Adjusted for inflation into 2018 prices, that is $29.21, + whatever tax. The artist deserve to be paid for their work and they used to be paid for their work.

Imagine suddenly not being paid for the work that you do, or only being paid a fraction, maybe 10% of what you used to be paid. How would that effect you and the others like you?

Despite what is fair, technology and the internet seem to have permanently ruined the fair payment of artist for their recorded work. Its just too easy to obtain the music for free thanks to technology and none of the attempts to redress the problem have worked. Plus it is now culturally ingrained that there is nothing wrong with not paying for recorded music.

They may deserve to be paid but how much? Your Achtung Baby example is not really relevant. Before the advent of recorded music, there were relatively few ďprofessionalĒ musicians. Most people who were entertained by music were entertained by music they made themselves or music that was made by their family and friends. The 1930s to the present-ish may be a brief period of time when a significant number of people could get filthy rich by making and selling recorded music, much as U2 has. Iím not sure that ever really made sense. It was an artifact of a publishing business model that is now being disrupted by technology. The era of dreaming of making it big in an all or nothing way is ending. On the other hand, there is perhaps more opportunity for a passionate musician to make a small or moderate living off live performances, merchandise, and streaming revenue. I realize the streaming model is not really doing much for any musicians right now but it may (hopefully) evolve to that point. Iím in my 50s and I really donít like collecting cluttering objects either. Its just so much paper and plastic waste.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know anyone that refers to their Compact Disc collection or record collection as paper and plastic waste. I certainly don't. I love my compact disc and continue to listen to them just like I did when I got my first CD's back in 1988.

As for history, well, we used to have Slave Labor that was paid NOTHING, that does not mean we should go back to that or that people don't deserve to be paid. The music business was great and without it you would not have all the bands you love. Its sad to see a business destroyed so rapidly and I doubt the people who are cheering that on would feel the same way if it was their business or job that was being eliminated.

The current model which is primarily streaming is terrible. Its why there has been a huge decline in the number of new bands and rock music in general. The amount of money coming in can't support a band of five people. A solo artist has a better shot and not as much risk. But most rock music is made by bands and it is being destroyed by technology and the ability of people to get anything they want for free. Its terrible and naturally any business can't last long when the product they sell is available for free everywhere you look.

This is not better for the little guy or anyone starting out. Its a far worse situation which is why less people are forming new bands. A band like U2 is safe thanks to their massive past earnings. But the new guy just starting out really does not have much of a chance. People don't flock to see you in concert until they have purchased your album usually. People now just look for songs to stream. The investment in individual artist is far less now. When people are not invested in an artist and maybe only listen to one song by them, they don't bother to go see them in concert.

The industry is dying, especially rock music which is sad because a lot of talent out there is not being heard, or is opting for a different line of work because chances of making or so much slimmer now than they were before. Forming a band and playing on week nights and weekends in your town and posting things on the internet is not the same. That's not a career or a job, that's just a hobby that will likely not earn the artist much money. Few people will ever know who that artist is and during the day they will have to be working somewhere else in order to make ends meet.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 15, 2018, 03:21:43 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

Iím not trying to cheat musicianís out of their money.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatal

But that is essentially what your doing. Spotify is $10 dollars a month to listen to anything you want. It would be the same as putting a quarter into a juke box in 1985 and being able to listen to anything on the juke box for an entire day, just on that one quarter. A quarter in a juke box in 1985 would only get you one song played.

Quote

I just think physical media is an inferior way to own the right to listen to someoneís music, even if it did create a way for a small percentage of musicians to make huge amounts of money. All this to say that you canít compare todayís sales of SOE to sales of past albums. Thatís not the way that most people buy music these days.

Its a way for the little guy to make money. Its the little guy that is being the most robbed in this process. As for U2, most of their fans do not stream or buy individual tracks. Most purchase the album whether it be physical or digital. By the way if you hate physical media you should at least be buying a digital copy of the album.

U2's streaming numbers and individual digital song download numbers are tiny. So to see how U2 is doing, its important to still look at the album sales numbers, because that is where they are still doing well relative to all the other artist in the industry.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 15, 2018, 03:26:24 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 15, 2018, 08:11:49 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 16, 2018, 03:16:50 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 17, 2018, 12:42:26 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue. Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining. The music my dad loved is pretty much dead. The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different. It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point. That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery. Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 18, 2018, 05:22:56 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue. Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining. The music my dad loved is pretty much dead. The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different. It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point. That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery. Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on May 18, 2018, 08:02:08 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I donít know anything about the music scene but I know a good bit about book publishing (novels) and I suspect the impact of the digital age has been parallel in many respects. Many of my friends are writers or aspiring writers and thereís a lot of discussion about the pros and cons.

Selling your novel to a major publisher has always been very difficult and unlikely, akin to musicians getting signed to a major label. But today, everyone can easily self-publish to the Internet. Some writers celebrate that ó no more gatekeepers! And the percentage of the price you get to keep is potentially greater.

But getting your novel noticed and bought by anyone when you self-publish is extremely difficult. Some self-published novels do make it, but the proportion is vanishing small. (To be sure, most self-published novels are crap, which is why many readers wonít even look at them.)

So on the one side, thereís all these people struggling to make it themselves, though digital distribution, and failing with overwhelming frequency. On the other side, traditional publishers are getting squeezed. They donít have as much money as they used to so they are more risk-averse. Getting picked up, and not being dropped, is harder than ever. U2 were almost dropped after October and they have said in the current environment they surely would have been.

Then thereís piracy. Once media goes digital, itís very easy to steal.

Musicians have a big advantage over writers ó they can charge for performance. Nobodyís going to pay to watch an author type.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 18, 2018, 10:56:56 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue. Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining. The music my dad loved is pretty much dead. The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different. It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point. That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery. Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Wons,

I think youíre missing my point. People were enjoying making and listening to music long before the tape recorder was invented. Iím not really debating about how much my favorite bands are making. What Iím saying is I donít think the change in the way people buy music is leading to a shortage of good music. There are more bands that I like now than there were when I was in high school. I would never have known about all this interesting great music without the internet. Before the 1930s nobody viewed music as much of a way to make living, let alone become a millionaire. In my experience, musicianís make music because they love making music and feel rewarded when other people appreciate it. In many ways we are coming back part way to how it was before music became such a commercial racket.

You realize that even before the internet, the musicians who could support themselves solely with their music income was a tiny tiny subset of all musicians. If that number is sliced by a factor of 10, its still not really material if you went from 1% to 1/10 of 1%. Before the internet most musicians did not make much money. After the internet, most musicians donít make much money. But they do have a way to get it out there to the public. If your universe of music is just the U2s of the world I guess you might not see the big picture that way.

As for the $10/month subscription, how many people do you think bought more than 1 CD per month anyway? Record sales have never been the big money maker for the artist. The artist would get what, a dollar or two per record? Even if you sell a half million records, which very few bands did on s regular basis. Thatís $500k to $1MM. Split 4 or 5 ways for a band. You release an album every 3 or 4 years. Thatís about $40K a year. And a band that had half a million selling album is a famous band that everyone thought was successful. Yeah I know big bands can make $3 or $4 per CD. Cry me a river that U2 canít sell as many CDs now. Theyíre doing just fine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 19, 2018, 10:47:51 AM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue. Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining. The music my dad loved is pretty much dead. The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different. It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point. That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery. Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Wons,

I think youíre missing my point. People were enjoying making and listening to music long before the tape recorder was invented. Iím not really debating about how much my favorite bands are making. What Iím saying is I donít think the change in the way people buy music is leading to a shortage of good music. There are more bands that I like now than there were when I was in high school. I would never have known about all this interesting great music without the internet. Before the 1930s nobody viewed music as much of a way to make living, let alone become a millionaire. In my experience, musicianís make music because they love making music and feel rewarded when other people appreciate it. In many ways we are coming back part way to how it was before music became such a commercial racket.

You realize that even before the internet, the musicians who could support themselves solely with their music income was a tiny tiny subset of all musicians. If that number is sliced by a factor of 10, its still not really material if you went from 1% to 1/10 of 1%. Before the internet most musicians did not make much money. After the internet, most musicians donít make much money. But they do have a way to get it out there to the public. If your universe of music is just the U2s of the world I guess you might not see the big picture that way.

As for the $10/month subscription, how many people do you think bought more than 1 CD per month anyway? Record sales have never been the big money maker for the artist. The artist would get what, a dollar or two per record? Even if you sell a half million records, which very few bands did on s regular basis. Thatís $500k to $1MM. Split 4 or 5 ways for a band. You release an album every 3 or 4 years. Thatís about $40K a year. And a band that had half a million selling album is a famous band that everyone thought was successful. Yeah I know big bands can make $3 or $4 per CD. Cry me a river that U2 canít sell as many CDs now. Theyíre doing just fine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, name me 10 new bands from the current decade that are great and doing well thanks to music being essentially free to the masses! You still have yet to name a single one of these bands you talk about.

Most artist in the industry for the greatest portion of rock n roll history made their money from selling records and NOT concert tickets. U2 made more money from album and record sales from 1980 to 1995 than from ticket sales. Touring was a way to promote your albums and records and sell more of them. The cost of touring ate up the price of most tickets, which meant only the most popular artist were able to profit from touring and even back then the profits from ticket sales were very small.

The point your missing is that Album and record sales were the bedrock of the music industry in terms of how they made money, both for the artist and the record label. Its only been since 1994, that POPULAR artist started to making increasing profits from just ticket sales, which quickly started to outstrip their profits from albums and records. But that's ONLY if your mega popular and can charge ticket prices had high end prices. LITTLE GUY starting out playing a bar or a club can't charge high ticket prices or people won't come. What LITTLE GUY makes from ticket sales gets taken in a way to pay for the cost of travel, food, hotels. Imagine being on the road with 5 people for a year. Think about how much that cost per night in terms of food, lodging, travel. If you think your two week vacation cost a lot, imagine extending it for 52 weeks. The LITTLE GUY's first profits would come from album and record sales. It was only later, IF he became more popular, that LITTLE GUY might be able to play a larger venue and charge a more expensive ticket price.

Lots of Big name artist would even LOSE money from tours due to the enormous cost. They were able to stay in the industry though thanks to their profits from album and record sales. Money and popularity come FIRST from the artist music, album sales, record sales, radio airplay etc. Its only after that, SECOND, that an artist will start to see profits from touring from people going to see them. The public does not pay to listen to unknown artist or artist they have only heard one song from. The public only invest money in seeing an artist live when they have already purchased or become familiar with a substantial portion of the artist music. The LITTLE GUY can't survive on touring because not enough people know who he is yet in order to profit from touring.

In the year 2001 in the United States, there were 100 albums that each sold OVER 1,000,000 copies. Some of those albums sold over 10,000,000 copies, just in that year. The average retail price for these albums was $20 dollars. In 2017, there were only TWO albums that sold over 1,000,000 copies and the average retail price is closer to $10 dollars now. So you go from a time in 2001 where hundreds of artist are each selling over 1,000,000 copies of their albums and making millions of dollars from those sales, to a time when almost no one, with maybe four or five exceptions can do that. That ALONE shows you how much harder it is for anyone today to make a living in the music industry. The music industry as a whole has collapsed. When a business collapses, less people go into that business. The artist has to find another job and can't spend as much time on what has become a hobby now. Less time invested equals less great music. Now that its a hobby and not a business, few people ever get to hear the artist music even if the artist is able to make some great stuff.

This has seriously impacted the quality of music that is available to the public. The public invest for less money and time in new recorded music than they did 15 years ago. Technology has killed the music business. Technology kills any business when their product because widely available for FREE. Imagine whatever product you sell or service you provide in your job and then suddenly your consumers leave because they can easily get what they used to pay you for FREE. You'll be looking for a new job soon and its unlikely your kids will follow Mom and Dad into their once profitable careers. This is exactly what is happening in the music industry.

Its already been shown that artist only make a tiny fraction from streaming compared to what they once made from album sales. You look at the volume of sales back in a time like 2000 and 2001 in just the United States. The average person was spending a lot more than $10 dollars a month on music and a healthy percentage of that money would go to the artist. Billions of albums are being sold. The money was flowing. The music industry was at its height. Its economics. When a colapse or depression happens, artist get cut and those that survive are making less money. I can't think of any other business out there that has had 80% of their business wiped out in just a few years and survived. The music industry has survived, but it has been severely damaged. The industry that produced so many great legends to include U2 is not putting out music like that in the volumes once seen.

Anyways, I ask you once again to list these great new bands you are listening to that started out in this current decade. If you think new music now is as great as it was in the 1980s, lets hear your examples.

People are essentially stealing from artist today. But they will twist and contort themselves anyway they can in order to justify paying nothing or nearly nothing for the music they listen to today. So they will go back to the 19th century and talk about how music was free then and that some how it should be free today. Thats absolute rubish because you could say that about virtually anything. Hell, there was a time when money did not exist. People hunted and gathered. No one owned land. I don't see how any of that justifies stealing from people in the 21st century. Its like when people loot the local store during a crises and the police are not around. If people can get away stealing something, they will justify in their minds with things like, "everyone else is doing it", "I'm not rich", etc etc. The mass anonymous use of new technology has allowed the public to loot the music industry to the bone. I've not been a participant. I still purchase my music on Compact Disc just like I did back in 1988. Any artist I purchase music from to listen to gets fairly paid. Anyone using spotify is robbing the artist they listen to essentially.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 19, 2018, 10:05:35 PM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue. Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining. The music my dad loved is pretty much dead. The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different. It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point. That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery. Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Wons,

I think youíre missing my point. People were enjoying making and listening to music long before the tape recorder was invented. Iím not really debating about how much my favorite bands are making. What Iím saying is I donít think the change in the way people buy music is leading to a shortage of good music. There are more bands that I like now than there were when I was in high school. I would never have known about all this interesting great music without the internet. Before the 1930s nobody viewed music as much of a way to make living, let alone become a millionaire. In my experience, musicianís make music because they love making music and feel rewarded when other people appreciate it. In many ways we are coming back part way to how it was before music became such a commercial racket.

You realize that even before the internet, the musicians who could support themselves solely with their music income was a tiny tiny subset of all musicians. If that number is sliced by a factor of 10, its still not really material if you went from 1% to 1/10 of 1%. Before the internet most musicians did not make much money. After the internet, most musicians donít make much money. But they do have a way to get it out there to the public. If your universe of music is just the U2s of the world I guess you might not see the big picture that way.

As for the $10/month subscription, how many people do you think bought more than 1 CD per month anyway? Record sales have never been the big money maker for the artist. The artist would get what, a dollar or two per record? Even if you sell a half million records, which very few bands did on s regular basis. Thatís $500k to $1MM. Split 4 or 5 ways for a band. You release an album every 3 or 4 years. Thatís about $40K a year. And a band that had half a million selling album is a famous band that everyone thought was successful. Yeah I know big bands can make $3 or $4 per CD. Cry me a river that U2 canít sell as many CDs now. Theyíre doing just fine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, name me 10 new bands from the current decade that are great and doing well thanks to music being essentially free to the masses! You still have yet to name a single one of these bands you talk about.

Most artist in the industry for the greatest portion of rock n roll history made their money from selling records and NOT concert tickets. U2 made more money from album and record sales from 1980 to 1995 than from ticket sales. Touring was a way to promote your albums and records and sell more of them. The cost of touring ate up the price of most tickets, which meant only the most popular artist were able to profit from touring and even back then the profits from ticket sales were very small.

The point your missing is that Album and record sales were the bedrock of the music industry in terms of how they made money, both for the artist and the record label. Its only been since 1994, that POPULAR artist started to making increasing profits from just ticket sales, which quickly started to outstrip their profits from albums and records. But that's ONLY if your mega popular and can charge ticket prices had high end prices. LITTLE GUY starting out playing a bar or a club can't charge high ticket prices or people won't come. What LITTLE GUY makes from ticket sales gets taken in a way to pay for the cost of travel, food, hotels. Imagine being on the road with 5 people for a year. Think about how much that cost per night in terms of food, lodging, travel. If you think your two week vacation cost a lot, imagine extending it for 52 weeks. The LITTLE GUY's first profits would come from album and record sales. It was only later, IF he became more popular, that LITTLE GUY might be able to play a larger venue and charge a more expensive ticket price.

Lots of Big name artist would even LOSE money from tours due to the enormous cost. They were able to stay in the industry though thanks to their profits from album and record sales. Money and popularity come FIRST from the artist music, album sales, record sales, radio airplay etc. Its only after that, SECOND, that an artist will start to see profits from touring from people going to see them. The public does not pay to listen to unknown artist or artist they have only heard one song from. The public only invest money in seeing an artist live when they have already purchased or become familiar with a substantial portion of the artist music. The LITTLE GUY can't survive on touring because not enough people know who he is yet in order to profit from touring.

In the year 2001 in the United States, there were 100 albums that each sold OVER 1,000,000 copies. Some of those albums sold over 10,000,000 copies, just in that year. The average retail price for these albums was $20 dollars. In 2017, there were only TWO albums that sold over 1,000,000 copies and the average retail price is closer to $10 dollars now. So you go from a time in 2001 where hundreds of artist are each selling over 1,000,000 copies of their albums and making millions of dollars from those sales, to a time when almost no one, with maybe four or five exceptions can do that. That ALONE shows you how much harder it is for anyone today to make a living in the music industry. The music industry as a whole has collapsed. When a business collapses, less people go into that business. The artist has to find another job and can't spend as much time on what has become a hobby now. Less time invested equals less great music. Now that its a hobby and not a business, few people ever get to hear the artist music even if the artist is able to make some great stuff.

This has seriously impacted the quality of music that is available to the public. The public invest for less money and time in new recorded music than they did 15 years ago. Technology has killed the music business. Technology kills any business when their product because widely available for FREE. Imagine whatever product you sell or service you provide in your job and then suddenly your consumers leave because they can easily get what they used to pay you for FREE. You'll be looking for a new job soon and its unlikely your kids will follow Mom and Dad into their once profitable careers. This is exactly what is happening in the music industry.

Its already been shown that artist only make a tiny fraction from streaming compared to what they once made from album sales. You look at the volume of sales back in a time like 2000 and 2001 in just the United States. The average person was spending a lot more than $10 dollars a month on music and a healthy percentage of that money would go to the artist. Billions of albums are being sold. The money was flowing. The music industry was at its height. Its economics. When a colapse or depression happens, artist get cut and those that survive are making less money. I can't think of any other business out there that has had 80% of their business wiped out in just a few years and survived. The music industry has survived, but it has been severely damaged. The industry that produced so many great legends to include U2 is not putting out music like that in the volumes once seen.

Anyways, I ask you once again to list these great new bands you are listening to that started out in this current decade. If you think new music now is as great as it was in the 1980s, lets hear your examples.

People are essentially stealing from artist today. But they will twist and contort themselves anyway they can in order to justify paying nothing or nearly nothing for the music they listen to today. So they will go back to the 19th century and talk about how music was free then and that some how it should be free today. Thats absolute rubish because you could say that about virtually anything. Hell, there was a time when money did not exist. People hunted and gathered. No one owned land. I don't see how any of that justifies stealing from people in the 21st century. Its like when people loot the local store during a crises and the police are not around. If people can get away stealing something, they will justify in their minds with things like, "everyone else is doing it", "I'm not rich", etc etc. The mass anonymous use of new technology has allowed the public to loot the music industry to the bone. I've not been a participant. I still purchase my music on Compact Disc just like I did back in 1988. Any artist I purchase music from to listen to gets fairly paid. Anyone using spotify is robbing the artist they listen to essentially.

Well I canít keep up with your word count.

As for your insinuation Iím ripping musicians off, I donít take anything from anyone except on terms they agree with. If they donít want me to be able to listen they donít have to put their music on spotify. I think you greatly overestimate how much 99% of artists ever made from CDs.

Over and out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: hollywoodswag on May 20, 2018, 05:29:32 AM

I gave in a bit and got Apple Music. I took a look at my wish list and calculated that it would take decades before actually buying the albums would end up being cheaper than having Apple Music itself. However, the way I use it is that I explore various albums and if I really like them, I add them to my wish list to actually buy them. At the end of the day, I like owning the music, so I basically wait until the various albums I want go on sale and then buy them at discounted prices. I think that once I acquire most of what I want, I'll cancel my subscription. At the end of the day, I do believe in buying the music I really like so I can support the artists who make it, but Apple Music allows me to soften the economic blow a bit in the interim.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 20, 2018, 08:20:21 AM

I gave in a bit and got Apple Music. I took a look at my wish list and calculated that it would take decades before actually buying the albums would end up being cheaper than having Apple Music itself. However, the way I use it is that I explore various albums and if I really like them, I add them to my wish list to actually buy them. At the end of the day, I like owning the music, so I basically wait until the various albums I want go on sale and then buy them at discounted prices. I think that once I acquire most of what I want, I'll cancel my subscription. At the end of the day, I do believe in buying the music I really like so I can support the artists who make it, but Apple Music allows me to soften the economic blow a bit in the interim.

I look at it this way. I was not buying a CD every month. I would buy about 3 or 4 per year. That means I was putting $40/year for music recordings into the the industryís pockets. Now Iím putting $120/year into the industry. Iím paying an extra $80 year for the convenience of not having to dig out the CDís I already own . Even before subscription services came along I was buying fewer CDs just because my lifestyle had changed. But I find I go to more live music now because there are so many good bands that come through town that play at smaller venues. These are bands I never would have known of without the internet. They are selling out 3,000 seat venues at $50/seat without all the overhead and costs of a big band like U2. The casino venues are booming right now because of this. When I was in high school all there was to see was the well-known bands at the arenas or local bands in the clubs. Now there is this whole new in-between of really good bands, not getting rich but at least making a full-time job out of it. Which is what most of us have.

If all youíre doing is listening to CDs from the U2s and Coldplays and Imagine Dragons of the world and going to their arena shows I can see how you would miss this.

Iím not spending more on music than I was in High School or College, but Iím spending more than I was ten years ago by a wide margin. So how exactly is this killing the industry if theyíre getting more from me now than they were ten years ago.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 20, 2018, 10:49:01 AM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue. Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining. The music my dad loved is pretty much dead. The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different. It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point. That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery. Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Wons,

I think youíre missing my point. People were enjoying making and listening to music long before the tape recorder was invented. Iím not really debating about how much my favorite bands are making. What Iím saying is I donít think the change in the way people buy music is leading to a shortage of good music. There are more bands that I like now than there were when I was in high school. I would never have known about all this interesting great music without the internet. Before the 1930s nobody viewed music as much of a way to make living, let alone become a millionaire. In my experience, musicianís make music because they love making music and feel rewarded when other people appreciate it. In many ways we are coming back part way to how it was before music became such a commercial racket.

You realize that even before the internet, the musicians who could support themselves solely with their music income was a tiny tiny subset of all musicians. If that number is sliced by a factor of 10, its still not really material if you went from 1% to 1/10 of 1%. Before the internet most musicians did not make much money. After the internet, most musicians donít make much money. But they do have a way to get it out there to the public. If your universe of music is just the U2s of the world I guess you might not see the big picture that way.

As for the $10/month subscription, how many people do you think bought more than 1 CD per month anyway? Record sales have never been the big money maker for the artist. The artist would get what, a dollar or two per record? Even if you sell a half million records, which very few bands did on s regular basis. Thatís $500k to $1MM. Split 4 or 5 ways for a band. You release an album every 3 or 4 years. Thatís about $40K a year. And a band that had half a million selling album is a famous band that everyone thought was successful. Yeah I know big bands can make $3 or $4 per CD. Cry me a river that U2 canít sell as many CDs now. Theyíre doing just fine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, name me 10 new bands from the current decade that are great and doing well thanks to music being essentially free to the masses! You still have yet to name a single one of these bands you talk about.

Most artist in the industry for the greatest portion of rock n roll history made their money from selling records and NOT concert tickets. U2 made more money from album and record sales from 1980 to 1995 than from ticket sales. Touring was a way to promote your albums and records and sell more of them. The cost of touring ate up the price of most tickets, which meant only the most popular artist were able to profit from touring and even back then the profits from ticket sales were very small.

The point your missing is that Album and record sales were the bedrock of the music industry in terms of how they made money, both for the artist and the record label. Its only been since 1994, that POPULAR artist started to making increasing profits from just ticket sales, which quickly started to outstrip their profits from albums and records. But that's ONLY if your mega popular and can charge ticket prices had high end prices. LITTLE GUY starting out playing a bar or a club can't charge high ticket prices or people won't come. What LITTLE GUY makes from ticket sales gets taken in a way to pay for the cost of travel, food, hotels. Imagine being on the road with 5 people for a year. Think about how much that cost per night in terms of food, lodging, travel. If you think your two week vacation cost a lot, imagine extending it for 52 weeks. The LITTLE GUY's first profits would come from album and record sales. It was only later, IF he became more popular, that LITTLE GUY might be able to play a larger venue and charge a more expensive ticket price.

Lots of Big name artist would even LOSE money from tours due to the enormous cost. They were able to stay in the industry though thanks to their profits from album and record sales. Money and popularity come FIRST from the artist music, album sales, record sales, radio airplay etc. Its only after that, SECOND, that an artist will start to see profits from touring from people going to see them. The public does not pay to listen to unknown artist or artist they have only heard one song from. The public only invest money in seeing an artist live when they have already purchased or become familiar with a substantial portion of the artist music. The LITTLE GUY can't survive on touring because not enough people know who he is yet in order to profit from touring.

In the year 2001 in the United States, there were 100 albums that each sold OVER 1,000,000 copies. Some of those albums sold over 10,000,000 copies, just in that year. The average retail price for these albums was $20 dollars. In 2017, there were only TWO albums that sold over 1,000,000 copies and the average retail price is closer to $10 dollars now. So you go from a time in 2001 where hundreds of artist are each selling over 1,000,000 copies of their albums and making millions of dollars from those sales, to a time when almost no one, with maybe four or five exceptions can do that. That ALONE shows you how much harder it is for anyone today to make a living in the music industry. The music industry as a whole has collapsed. When a business collapses, less people go into that business. The artist has to find another job and can't spend as much time on what has become a hobby now. Less time invested equals less great music. Now that its a hobby and not a business, few people ever get to hear the artist music even if the artist is able to make some great stuff.

This has seriously impacted the quality of music that is available to the public. The public invest for less money and time in new recorded music than they did 15 years ago. Technology has killed the music business. Technology kills any business when their product because widely available for FREE. Imagine whatever product you sell or service you provide in your job and then suddenly your consumers leave because they can easily get what they used to pay you for FREE. You'll be looking for a new job soon and its unlikely your kids will follow Mom and Dad into their once profitable careers. This is exactly what is happening in the music industry.

Its already been shown that artist only make a tiny fraction from streaming compared to what they once made from album sales. You look at the volume of sales back in a time like 2000 and 2001 in just the United States. The average person was spending a lot more than $10 dollars a month on music and a healthy percentage of that money would go to the artist. Billions of albums are being sold. The money was flowing. The music industry was at its height. Its economics. When a colapse or depression happens, artist get cut and those that survive are making less money. I can't think of any other business out there that has had 80% of their business wiped out in just a few years and survived. The music industry has survived, but it has been severely damaged. The industry that produced so many great legends to include U2 is not putting out music like that in the volumes once seen.

Anyways, I ask you once again to list these great new bands you are listening to that started out in this current decade. If you think new music now is as great as it was in the 1980s, lets hear your examples.

People are essentially stealing from artist today. But they will twist and contort themselves anyway they can in order to justify paying nothing or nearly nothing for the music they listen to today. So they will go back to the 19th century and talk about how music was free then and that some how it should be free today. Thats absolute rubish because you could say that about virtually anything. Hell, there was a time when money did not exist. People hunted and gathered. No one owned land. I don't see how any of that justifies stealing from people in the 21st century. Its like when people loot the local store during a crises and the police are not around. If people can get away stealing something, they will justify in their minds with things like, "everyone else is doing it", "I'm not rich", etc etc. The mass anonymous use of new technology has allowed the public to loot the music industry to the bone. I've not been a participant. I still purchase my music on Compact Disc just like I did back in 1988. Any artist I purchase music from to listen to gets fairly paid. Anyone using spotify is robbing the artist they listen to essentially.

Well I canít keep up with your word count.

As for your insinuation Iím ripping musicians off, I donít take anything from anyone except on terms they agree with. If they donít want me to be able to listen they donít have to put their music on spotify. I think you greatly overestimate how much 99% of artists ever made from CDs.

Over and out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What artist made from selling albums and singles was where the majority of their money came from. The cost of touring for most of rock n' roll history (1955-1995) usually ate up most of the ticket price. The tour was to promote the album because the album was not only the artist latest music, but where they would make the most of their money. It was only starting in 1994, that big name artist in the industry started charging more for tickets and started seeing profits above what they would make from releasing albums. Were talking about artist like Pink Floyd and The Eagles. U2 made more money from album sales of Achtung Baby and Zooropa than they did on ZOO TV tickets. U2 did not start to consistently make more from ticket sales than album sales until 2001, about 20 years into one of the most successful careers in rock history. Big, popular, veteran artist make huge profits from touring. The Little Guy pays for his dinner and his hotel room and to get to the next gig.

Artist are forced into streaming services today like Spotify because if they don't, they risk not making any money. File Sharing and other means of downloading music for free through the internet have forced artist into these streaming services. The artist is still being robbed though and saying the artist agreed to the deal, is no excuse. The Little Guy on Spotify does not make any money until their songs reach a certain streaming level. So when you pay that $10 dollar monthly fee, most of it goes to artist you probably don't even listen to. It goes to some rap or R&B artist that is getting millions of streams per day. Spotify takes your money, takes some for itself, and then distributes the rest primarily to artist with the most streams. Those new rock bands you claim to listen to probably don't see any of the $10 dollars you paid to Spotify on a monthly basis. They might see a few cents from time to time.

If your really respect artist who make music, BUY THEIR ALBUM! The artist will make more money from the album purchase than they will from you just listening to them on Spotify.

Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Being able to download individual tracks for just a $1 dollar without buying the album also cut into artist income from their recorded music. But now even that is rapidly declining as streaming takes over. Streaming is even worse for the artist than individual track downloads. Artist are now making a fraction of what they once did on their recorded music. As much as it hurts the popular veteran artist, it kills the new guy.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 20, 2018, 11:01:12 AM

I gave in a bit and got Apple Music. I took a look at my wish list and calculated that it would take decades before actually buying the albums would end up being cheaper than having Apple Music itself. However, the way I use it is that I explore various albums and if I really like them, I add them to my wish list to actually buy them. At the end of the day, I like owning the music, so I basically wait until the various albums I want go on sale and then buy them at discounted prices. I think that once I acquire most of what I want, I'll cancel my subscription. At the end of the day, I do believe in buying the music I really like so I can support the artists who make it, but Apple Music allows me to soften the economic blow a bit in the interim.

In 1991 when I purchased Achtung Baby on CD, it was $16.99. Adjust for inflation that is nearly $30 dollars today. But that is what everyone paid back then and there was no bitching or wining about it being too expensive. If you liked music, then you spent part of your entertainment budget on music. The music industry was healthy and growing. New artist and great new music was coming out every month. Over the years, I purchased hundreds of CD's. Everyone I know did. I still have all my CD's. I purchase far less music today because the quality of music had dramatically declined. A consequence of the music industry being destroyed by people getting music for free or almost for free.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 20, 2018, 11:07:08 AM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue. Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining. The music my dad loved is pretty much dead. The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different. It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point. That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery. Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Wons,

I think youíre missing my point. People were enjoying making and listening to music long before the tape recorder was invented. Iím not really debating about how much my favorite bands are making. What Iím saying is I donít think the change in the way people buy music is leading to a shortage of good music. There are more bands that I like now than there were when I was in high school. I would never have known about all this interesting great music without the internet. Before the 1930s nobody viewed music as much of a way to make living, let alone become a millionaire. In my experience, musicianís make music because they love making music and feel rewarded when other people appreciate it. In many ways we are coming back part way to how it was before music became such a commercial racket.

You realize that even before the internet, the musicians who could support themselves solely with their music income was a tiny tiny subset of all musicians. If that number is sliced by a factor of 10, its still not really material if you went from 1% to 1/10 of 1%. Before the internet most musicians did not make much money. After the internet, most musicians donít make much money. But they do have a way to get it out there to the public. If your universe of music is just the U2s of the world I guess you might not see the big picture that way.

As for the $10/month subscription, how many people do you think bought more than 1 CD per month anyway? Record sales have never been the big money maker for the artist. The artist would get what, a dollar or two per record? Even if you sell a half million records, which very few bands did on s regular basis. Thatís $500k to $1MM. Split 4 or 5 ways for a band. You release an album every 3 or 4 years. Thatís about $40K a year. And a band that had half a million selling album is a famous band that everyone thought was successful. Yeah I know big bands can make $3 or $4 per CD. Cry me a river that U2 canít sell as many CDs now. Theyíre doing just fine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, name me 10 new bands from the current decade that are great and doing well thanks to music being essentially free to the masses! You still have yet to name a single one of these bands you talk about.

Most artist in the industry for the greatest portion of rock n roll history made their money from selling records and NOT concert tickets. U2 made more money from album and record sales from 1980 to 1995 than from ticket sales. Touring was a way to promote your albums and records and sell more of them. The cost of touring ate up the price of most tickets, which meant only the most popular artist were able to profit from touring and even back then the profits from ticket sales were very small.

The point your missing is that Album and record sales were the bedrock of the music industry in terms of how they made money, both for the artist and the record label. Its only been since 1994, that POPULAR artist started to making increasing profits from just ticket sales, which quickly started to outstrip their profits from albums and records. But that's ONLY if your mega popular and can charge ticket prices had high end prices. LITTLE GUY starting out playing a bar or a club can't charge high ticket prices or people won't come. What LITTLE GUY makes from ticket sales gets taken in a way to pay for the cost of travel, food, hotels. Imagine being on the road with 5 people for a year. Think about how much that cost per night in terms of food, lodging, travel. If you think your two week vacation cost a lot, imagine extending it for 52 weeks. The LITTLE GUY's first profits would come from album and record sales. It was only later, IF he became more popular, that LITTLE GUY might be able to play a larger venue and charge a more expensive ticket price.

Lots of Big name artist would even LOSE money from tours due to the enormous cost. They were able to stay in the industry though thanks to their profits from album and record sales. Money and popularity come FIRST from the artist music, album sales, record sales, radio airplay etc. Its only after that, SECOND, that an artist will start to see profits from touring from people going to see them. The public does not pay to listen to unknown artist or artist they have only heard one song from. The public only invest money in seeing an artist live when they have already purchased or become familiar with a substantial portion of the artist music. The LITTLE GUY can't survive on touring because not enough people know who he is yet in order to profit from touring.

In the year 2001 in the United States, there were 100 albums that each sold OVER 1,000,000 copies. Some of those albums sold over 10,000,000 copies, just in that year. The average retail price for these albums was $20 dollars. In 2017, there were only TWO albums that sold over 1,000,000 copies and the average retail price is closer to $10 dollars now. So you go from a time in 2001 where hundreds of artist are each selling over 1,000,000 copies of their albums and making millions of dollars from those sales, to a time when almost no one, with maybe four or five exceptions can do that. That ALONE shows you how much harder it is for anyone today to make a living in the music industry. The music industry as a whole has collapsed. When a business collapses, less people go into that business. The artist has to find another job and can't spend as much time on what has become a hobby now. Less time invested equals less great music. Now that its a hobby and not a business, few people ever get to hear the artist music even if the artist is able to make some great stuff.

This has seriously impacted the quality of music that is available to the public. The public invest for less money and time in new recorded music than they did 15 years ago. Technology has killed the music business. Technology kills any business when their product because widely available for FREE. Imagine whatever product you sell or service you provide in your job and then suddenly your consumers leave because they can easily get what they used to pay you for FREE. You'll be looking for a new job soon and its unlikely your kids will follow Mom and Dad into their once profitable careers. This is exactly what is happening in the music industry.

Its already been shown that artist only make a tiny fraction from streaming compared to what they once made from album sales. You look at the volume of sales back in a time like 2000 and 2001 in just the United States. The average person was spending a lot more than $10 dollars a month on music and a healthy percentage of that money would go to the artist. Billions of albums are being sold. The money was flowing. The music industry was at its height. Its economics. When a colapse or depression happens, artist get cut and those that survive are making less money. I can't think of any other business out there that has had 80% of their business wiped out in just a few years and survived. The music industry has survived, but it has been severely damaged. The industry that produced so many great legends to include U2 is not putting out music like that in the volumes once seen.

Anyways, I ask you once again to list these great new bands you are listening to that started out in this current decade. If you think new music now is as great as it was in the 1980s, lets hear your examples.

People are essentially stealing from artist today. But they will twist and contort themselves anyway they can in order to justify paying nothing or nearly nothing for the music they listen to today. So they will go back to the 19th century and talk about how music was free then and that some how it should be free today. Thats absolute rubish because you could say that about virtually anything. Hell, there was a time when money did not exist. People hunted and gathered. No one owned land. I don't see how any of that justifies stealing from people in the 21st century. Its like when people loot the local store during a crises and the police are not around. If people can get away stealing something, they will justify in their minds with things like, "everyone else is doing it", "I'm not rich", etc etc. The mass anonymous use of new technology has allowed the public to loot the music industry to the bone. I've not been a participant. I still purchase my music on Compact Disc just like I did back in 1988. Any artist I purchase music from to listen to gets fairly paid. Anyone using spotify is robbing the artist they listen to essentially.

Well I canít keep up with your word count.

As for your insinuation Iím ripping musicians off, I donít take anything from anyone except on terms they agree with. If they donít want me to be able to listen they donít have to put their music on spotify. I think you greatly overestimate how much 99% of artists ever made from CDs.

Over and out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What artist made from selling albums and singles was where the majority of their money came from. The cost of touring for most of rock n' roll history (1955-1995) usually ate up most of the ticket price. The tour was to promote the album because the album was not only the artist latest music, but where they would make the most of their money. It was only starting in 1994, that big name artist in the industry started charging more for tickets and started seeing profits above what they would make from releasing albums. Were talking about artist like Pink Floyd and The Eagles. U2 made more money from album sales of Achtung Baby and Zooropa than they did on ZOO TV tickets. U2 did not start to consistently make more from ticket sales than album sales until 2001, about 20 years into one of the most successful careers in rock history. Big, popular, veteran artist make huge profits from touring. The Little Guy pays for his dinner and his hotel room and to get to the next gig.

Artist are forced into streaming services today like Spotify because if they don't, they risk not making any money. File Sharing and other means of downloading music for free through the internet have forced artist into these streaming services. The artist is still being robbed though and saying the artist agreed to the deal, is no excuse. The Little Guy on Spotify does not make any money until their songs reach a certain streaming level. So when you pay that $10 dollar monthly fee, most of it goes to artist you probably don't even listen to. It goes to some rap or R&B artist that is getting millions of streams per day. Spotify takes your money, takes some for itself, and then distributes the rest primarily to artist with the most streams. Those new rock bands you claim to listen to probably don't see any of the $10 dollars you paid to Spotify on a monthly basis. They might see a few cents from time to time.

If your really respect artist who make music, BUY THEIR ALBUM! The artist will make more money from the album purchase than they will from you just listening to them on Spotify.

Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Being able to download individual tracks for just a $1 dollar without buying the album also cut into artist income from their recorded music. But now even that is rapidly declining as streaming takes over. Streaming is even worse for the artist than individual track downloads. Artist are now making a fraction of what they once did on their recorded music. As much as it hurts the popular veteran artist, it kills the new guy.

You are going to have to figure out another way to respect artists. We are transitioning to a world without physical media. CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays are all declining because they are less desirable for most people. All your complaints existed in the old world too. How many CDs did an artist have to sell to get back their first dime after the label recovered its cost? CDs are going away. Music is not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: laoghaire on May 20, 2018, 11:17:43 AM

Once again I don't get the conflation of physical media with proper purchase. I downloaded SOE from iTunes. I don't have the CD (yet - I've decided I do want to buy it now) and that did not prevent me in any way from buying the album properly.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 20, 2018, 11:26:19 AM

I gave in a bit and got Apple Music. I took a look at my wish list and calculated that it would take decades before actually buying the albums would end up being cheaper than having Apple Music itself. However, the way I use it is that I explore various albums and if I really like them, I add them to my wish list to actually buy them. At the end of the day, I like owning the music, so I basically wait until the various albums I want go on sale and then buy them at discounted prices. I think that once I acquire most of what I want, I'll cancel my subscription. At the end of the day, I do believe in buying the music I really like so I can support the artists who make it, but Apple Music allows me to soften the economic blow a bit in the interim.

I look at it this way. I was not buying a CD every month. I would buy about 3 or 4 per year. That means I was putting $40/year for music recordings into the the industryís pockets. Now Iím putting $120/year into the industry. Iím paying an extra $80 year for the convenience of not having to dig out the CDís I already own . Even before subscription services came along I was buying fewer CDs just because my lifestyle had changed. But I find I go to more live music now because there are so many good bands that come through town that play at smaller venues. These are bands I never would have known of without the internet. They are selling out 3,000 seat venues at $50/seat without all the overhead and costs of a big band like U2. The casino venues are booming right now because of this. When I was in high school all there was to see was the well-known bands at the arenas or local bands in the clubs. Now there is this whole new in-between of really good bands, not getting rich but at least making a full-time job out of it. Which is what most of us have.

If all youíre doing is listening to CDs from the U2s and Coldplays and Imagine Dragons of the world and going to their arena shows I can see how you would miss this.

Iím not spending more on music than I was in High School or College, but Iím spending more than I was ten years ago by a wide margin. So how exactly is this killing the industry if theyíre getting more from me now than they were ten years ago.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who knows if your really being honest about what you spent before on music vs now with a streaming service. Either way, it does not matter because whether or not the music industry is successful or not is not dependent on you as an individual.

The Peak of the recording music industry, when it was GROSSING the largest amount of money in its history, adjusted for inflation, was in the years 2000 and 2001. There were 100 albums that each sold over 1 million copies during 2001 in just the United States at an average of $20 dollars an album. In 2017 there was only 2 and the average price was only about $10 dollars.

I've got some news for you. Theaters, 3,000 seat venues, have always been out there. Where do you think U2 played most of its shows on the WAR TOUR? There has not been any surge in new rock bands playing 3,000 seat venues. That market has been there for over 50 years and its doing worse now than it was 20 years ago. I'm not talking about whatever little town your from, I'm talking about across the United States and worldwide. I know because I've been reading the weekly Billboard Boxscore numbers that record this and is released every week since the late 1980s!

What artist make from recorded music has been declining since 2001. File Sharing, CD burning and other methods of getting music for free were the first culprits. Then the industry tried to get people away from that with individual track downloads for just a dollar. The decline continued though, although perhaps this slowed it for a few years. Then in this decade streaming has taken over which is even worse for the artist than individual track downloads.

The numbers don't lie. Artist would be making far more money if everyone went out and purchased their albums instead of streaming it or as they once did download one or two songs individually from the album.

The fact is, consumers love this new environment because they get to listen to all the music they want now for free or almost free. The vast majority don't care about how much damage its doing to the industry and how it robs and hurts the artist out there. Its technically legal, everyone does it, so who cares if its really fair to the artist. Naturally, there will be some who will attempt to explain this behavior as good for everyone and the artist. They will never be honest with what is really going on, because they can't see themselves as thieves. But there is no doubt about it, the recording artist is being robbed!

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 20, 2018, 11:28:24 AM

Once again I don't get the conflation of physical media with proper purchase. I downloaded SOE from iTunes. I don't have the CD (yet - I've decided I do want to buy it now) and that did not prevent me in any way from buying the album properly.

When I say the word ALBUM, I mean Physical and digital! A digital purchase of an album is the SAME as a physical purchase of the album when it comes to money for the artist!

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 20, 2018, 11:47:11 AM

I don't understand the clutter objections. People are talking about buying record players? Nice if you're an audiophile but for the rest of us, just put it on your preferred device. If you're listening for free, you can license it properly. Ok to check out a new artist or album imho (I tried SOE in YT before I bought it) but if you're listening more than a couple times, buy it - whether the whole album or just a song for a lousy buck.

I can use it on my phone but I can also play through an Echo Dot plugged into my home stereo. I can just say, ďAlexa, play Achtung BabyĒ and it immediately starts playing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen those commercials. I'm never going to talk to some electronic device to do everything for me. Not good for the body or the mind.

Wow, really? When I was in high school the only music I could be aware of was what got played on the radio. Now there is all kinds of new music out there to be discovered and its not screened by some radio programming service. In the old world only a tiny fraction of artists had even a shot at being heard beyond their hometown. In this era there is so much more variety and creative freedom. Does an artist really need the chance for a $600 MM net worth to be motivated to create? At least now you have the possibility of earning something. Before it was much more all or nothing and being appreciated. Only a tiny tiny fraction of artists ever got major label deals! I hear more new bands now than ever. The live music scene is vibrant with new young bands. They get known from the internet and then sell out small venues all over the country. CD sales is not how they make money now days. You can keep buying them, thatís great. But its not going to make a dent in the economics of a band.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think things are better now for rock bands, lets compare the years 1980 to 1989 with 2010 to 2018. Which time period has more rock bands you can actually name. Which time period has more rock bands actually making good money. Where is the U2 of 2010 to 2018? Meaning they released their first album no earlier than 2010.

There are less rock bands out there today by almost any measure. Labels were able to support thousands of bands, most you had never heard of back when the music industry was healthy. Studies have been done looking at what artist make now compared to 20 years ago and it is mind boggeling how little the average artist makes compared to back then. Live music has gradually disappeared from many college campuses and towns. I've seen famous rock clubs shut down because talent and interest had dried up and it was hurting the business. Rock music now is at its lowest level of popularity ever in history. In another thread on here, another poster was discussing the fact that there are now teenagers who have NEVER heard the term Rock N' Roll. D J's spinning dance music are now overwhelmingly dominate on most college campuses and towns. In larger cities, you'll still may have a good live music scene, but its much smaller than it was 20 years ago.

The little guy now does not earn more than they did 20 years ago. It may be easier to put something out there that people could possibly see, but that does not make it easier to actually get noticed, make money, and turn it into something that will make a career. If you get lucky on youtube and have something go viral, then maybe you might have a chance, but that's like winning the lottery.

I tell you what, name your top 10 favorite new bands, and lets see just how well their doing. How many people nationally or worldwide know who they are? How much have they sold in terms of albums, physical and digital? How many individual track downloads do they have? What do their streaming numbers look like? How about their concert boxoffice numbers? I have access to all that data, and I'll be able to see how each of these 10 bands are doing. The criteria for NEW is the earliest debut album cannot have been released prior to 2010. This should be interesting.

The decline of ďRockĒ is a different issue. Enjoyment of music and the number of people engaged in it is not declining. The music my dad loved is pretty much dead. The music we grew up with is constantly evolving into something different. It will likely cease to be known beyond historical interest and a relatively small group of fans at some point. That happens to every generationís music.

On the business side, its always been a lottery. Weíll just have to agree to disagree about whether its better or worse.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People essentially get todays music for free. A subscription to Spotify is not what I consider paying for music. Artist can't make anything significant when the consumer only has to pay $10 dollars a month to listen to virtually anything they want when they want.

Its true that todays taste in music is essentially R&B, Rap, Hip-Hop, Dance, Dance-Pop, Pop, and Country. Rock, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Heavy Metal, Speed Metal is all pretty far from mainstream these days and rarely gets significant airplay or notice from the masses.

But the decline of the rock band, or more generally bands and groups of any genre is not just the change in the publics taste, its also has to do with the ability to make money when there are 4 or 5 individuals in a typical band/group. Any money made is split four or five ways and starting out, that appears to be a big deterrent to getting involved. So your seeing far more solo artist now across every genre.

I'd like to see that list of your top favorite new bands though. I'd be interested to see how their doing and whether they are actually making any money. If most of them are just local, as opposed to national and international groups that leave their town to tour, then that is no different really than a band at the local high school that plays as a hobby.

Wons,

I think youíre missing my point. People were enjoying making and listening to music long before the tape recorder was invented. Iím not really debating about how much my favorite bands are making. What Iím saying is I donít think the change in the way people buy music is leading to a shortage of good music. There are more bands that I like now than there were when I was in high school. I would never have known about all this interesting great music without the internet. Before the 1930s nobody viewed music as much of a way to make living, let alone become a millionaire. In my experience, musicianís make music because they love making music and feel rewarded when other people appreciate it. In many ways we are coming back part way to how it was before music became such a commercial racket.

You realize that even before the internet, the musicians who could support themselves solely with their music income was a tiny tiny subset of all musicians. If that number is sliced by a factor of 10, its still not really material if you went from 1% to 1/10 of 1%. Before the internet most musicians did not make much money. After the internet, most musicians donít make much money. But they do have a way to get it out there to the public. If your universe of music is just the U2s of the world I guess you might not see the big picture that way.

As for the $10/month subscription, how many people do you think bought more than 1 CD per month anyway? Record sales have never been the big money maker for the artist. The artist would get what, a dollar or two per record? Even if you sell a half million records, which very few bands did on s regular basis. Thatís $500k to $1MM. Split 4 or 5 ways for a band. You release an album every 3 or 4 years. Thatís about $40K a year. And a band that had half a million selling album is a famous band that everyone thought was successful. Yeah I know big bands can make $3 or $4 per CD. Cry me a river that U2 canít sell as many CDs now. Theyíre doing just fine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, name me 10 new bands from the current decade that are great and doing well thanks to music being essentially free to the masses! You still have yet to name a single one of these bands you talk about.

Most artist in the industry for the greatest portion of rock n roll history made their money from selling records and NOT concert tickets. U2 made more money from album and record sales from 1980 to 1995 than from ticket sales. Touring was a way to promote your albums and records and sell more of them. The cost of touring ate up the price of most tickets, which meant only the most popular artist were able to profit from touring and even back then the profits from ticket sales were very small.

The point your missing is that Album and record sales were the bedrock of the music industry in terms of how they made money, both for the artist and the record label. Its only been since 1994, that POPULAR artist started to making increasing profits from just ticket sales, which quickly started to outstrip their profits from albums and records. But that's ONLY if your mega popular and can charge ticket prices had high end prices. LITTLE GUY starting out playing a bar or a club can't charge high ticket prices or people won't come. What LITTLE GUY makes from ticket sales gets taken in a way to pay for the cost of travel, food, hotels. Imagine being on the road with 5 people for a year. Think about how much that cost per night in terms of food, lodging, travel. If you think your two week vacation cost a lot, imagine extending it for 52 weeks. The LITTLE GUY's first profits would come from album and record sales. It was only later, IF he became more popular, that LITTLE GUY might be able to play a larger venue and charge a more expensive ticket price.

Lots of Big name artist would even LOSE money from tours due to the enormous cost. They were able to stay in the industry though thanks to their profits from album and record sales. Money and popularity come FIRST from the artist music, album sales, record sales, radio airplay etc. Its only after that, SECOND, that an artist will start to see profits from touring from people going to see them. The public does not pay to listen to unknown artist or artist they have only heard one song from. The public only invest money in seeing an artist live when they have already purchased or become familiar with a substantial portion of the artist music. The LITTLE GUY can't survive on touring because not enough people know who he is yet in order to profit from touring.

In the year 2001 in the United States, there were 100 albums that each sold OVER 1,000,000 copies. Some of those albums sold over 10,000,000 copies, just in that year. The average retail price for these albums was $20 dollars. In 2017, there were only TWO albums that sold over 1,000,000 copies and the average retail price is closer to $10 dollars now. So you go from a time in 2001 where hundreds of artist are each selling over 1,000,000 copies of their albums and making millions of dollars from those sales, to a time when almost no one, with maybe four or five exceptions can do that. That ALONE shows you how much harder it is for anyone today to make a living in the music industry. The music industry as a whole has collapsed. When a business collapses, less people go into that business. The artist has to find another job and can't spend as much time on what has become a hobby now. Less time invested equals less great music. Now that its a hobby and not a business, few people ever get to hear the artist music even if the artist is able to make some great stuff.

People are essentially stealing from artist today. But they will twist and contort themselves anyway they can in order to justify paying nothing or nearly nothing for the music they listen to today. So they will go back to the 19th century and talk about how music was free then and that some how it should be free today. Thats absolute rubish because you could say that about virtually anything. Hell, there was a time when money did not exist. People hunted and gathered. No one owned land. I don't see how any of that justifies stealing from people in the 21st century. Its like when people loot the local store during a crises and the police are not around. If people can get away stealing something, they will justify in their minds with things like, "everyone else is doing it", "I'm not rich", etc etc. The mass anonymous use of new technology has allowed the public to loot the music industry to the bone. I've not been a participant. I still purchase my music on Compact Disc just like I did back in 1988. Any artist I purchase music from to listen to gets fairly paid. Anyone using spotify is robbing the artist they listen to essentially.

Well I canít keep up with your word count.

Over and out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What artist made from selling albums and singles was where the majority of their money came from. The cost of touring for most of rock n' roll history (1955-1995) usually ate up most of the ticket price. The tour was to promote the album because the album was not only the artist latest music, but where they would make the most of their money. It was only starting in 1994, that big name artist in the industry started charging more for tickets and started seeing profits above what they would make from releasing albums. Were talking about artist like Pink Floyd and The Eagles. U2 made more money from album sales of Achtung Baby and Zooropa than they did on ZOO TV tickets. U2 did not start to consistently make more from ticket sales than album sales until 2001, about 20 years into one of the most successful careers in rock history. Big, popular, veteran artist make huge profits from touring. The Little Guy pays for his dinner and his hotel room and to get to the next gig.

If your really respect artist who make music, BUY THEIR ALBUM! The artist will make more money from the album purchase than they will from you just listening to them on Spotify.

Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Being able to download individual tracks for just a $1 dollar without buying the album also cut into artist income from their recorded music. But now even that is rapidly declining as streaming takes over. Streaming is even worse for the artist than individual track downloads. Artist are now making a fraction of what they once did on their recorded music. As much as it hurts the popular veteran artist, it kills the new guy.

You are going to have to figure out another way to respect artists. We are transitioning to a world without physical media. CDs, DVDs, Blu-rays are all declining because they are less desirable for most people. All your complaints existed in the old world too. How many CDs did an artist have to sell to get back their first dime after the label recovered its cost? CDs are going away. Music is not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is NOT about physical media! This about paying the artist for their recorded work. Did you know that you can BUY THE ALBUM DIGITALLY? Did you know those sales of digital albums are included in artist totals? The album sales I list for SONGS OF EXPERIENCE are physical and digital sales COMBINED!

BUT people are not buying digital albums even though they are widely available. Why? Because its the same expense as buying the physical album. Why buy music when you can get it for free through the internet or other methods?

Yet despite the fact that you can buy any album in a NON-PHYSICAL digital format, the result has happened:

number of albums selling 1 million or more copies in 2001 in the U.S.: 100number of albums selling 1 million or more copies in 2017 in the U.S.: 2

This is not an issue of physical media as the above facts show. Digital albums are available for all artists. But are people buying them? No. Why, because they can get it for free from other sources. As a result, the artist gets robbed. Those are the facts. For some reason, you want to be a cheerleader for this. Just because its great listening to music for free or almost free does not make it right. But naturally the consumer will do ANYTHING to defend something thats in their interest regardless of whether its really right, wrong, or fair to the artist.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: laoghaire on May 20, 2018, 12:56:00 PM

Once again I don't get the conflation of physical media with proper purchase. I downloaded SOE from iTunes. I don't have the CD (yet - I've decided I do want to buy it now) and that did not prevent me in any way from buying the album properly.

When I say the word ALBUM, I mean Physical and digital! A digital purchase of an album is the SAME as a physical purchase of the album when it comes to money for the artist!

I didn't want to quote a 3 mile thread but that was in response to Tortuga, right above my post.

EDITED TO ADD: Whoops, I messed up with the use of "conflation." I think I was going to say something else, got distracted while typing, and then finished in a confusing way. So YES we are talking about BOTH physical and digital AS WE SHOULD.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on May 20, 2018, 04:29:00 PM

Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Thanks for sharing all this data, wons. Just to be clear, does the 2017 number include streaming equivalent album sales? Because, as I understand it, 1500 streams = 1 album sales.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 20, 2018, 05:15:08 PM

Well, I guess if you donít believe that the example of my own payment for music is true then this discussion has ceased to have what little meaning it ever had. Thanks for the discussion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: hollywoodswag on May 21, 2018, 03:05:57 AM

Speaking at least for myself, buying those one or two songs from an album has generally led to artists getting money from me that wouldn't otherwise. I've started expanding a bit and completing some of those old albums in a quest to broaden my horizons, but take the countless one-hit wonders out there and consider that if it came down to having to buy the whole album to get the song, they'd have gotten nothing from me. I know $1.29 isn't exactly big bucks, but it's money that I would not have otherwise spent.

I do think that one benefit to the current industry is that it makes discovery so much easier than ever before. I'm able to use Apple Music to scout out stuff and see if I end up liking it. That led me to buy two Maroon 5 albums. I'll play them first and if I like them, awesome. If not, hey, money saved. At least I know, but I'd venture that more people will end up getting my money than would have prior to the introduction of this method.

Don't get me wrong: for the most part, I still think that streaming will be used to rob some artists blind that likely would have received money otherwise. I like to purchase the actual music to ensure that the right people get the money they've earned. I'm just saying that the streaming concept is not without merit.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 21, 2018, 07:11:31 AM

Once again I don't get the conflation of physical media with proper purchase. I downloaded SOE from iTunes. I don't have the CD (yet - I've decided I do want to buy it now) and that did not prevent me in any way from buying the album properly.

When I say the word ALBUM, I mean Physical and digital! A digital purchase of an album is the SAME as a physical purchase of the album when it comes to money for the artist!

I didn't want to quote a 3 mile thread but that was in response to Tortuga, right above my post.

I realize that now. Sorry about that!

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 21, 2018, 07:20:57 AM

Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Thanks for sharing all this data, wons. Just to be clear, does the 2017 number include streaming equivalent album sales? Because, as I understand it, 1500 streams = 1 album sales.

No its just album sales in all formats, physical and digital. No streaming at all.

The problem with streaming, having a system of 1,500 streams = 1 album, is often those streams are only 1 or 2 songs from the album. Same with individual digital track downloads. Probably only 1 or 2 songs from the album. In both cases what is essentially representative of just interest in one or two songs, single performance is being added to album performance when none of these people have even listened to the album.

U2's Songs Of Experience is at 300,001 copies sold in the U.S. right now. Their streaming and individual track downloads would only add about 20,000 to that total.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 21, 2018, 07:35:28 AM

Well, I guess if you donít believe that the example of my own payment for music is true then this discussion has ceased to have what little meaning it ever had. Thanks for the discussion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I apologize for doubting your example or claiming it was gimmick simply to make your point. There are certainly people out there who are in this situation now, spending more money per year on music because of Spotify. But, they are the minority. The numbers show that the overwhelming majority of people are spending less on music today than they did 20 years ago, simply based on what the recording music industry is grossing per year now compared to what it grossed back in the year 2000.

I want to also point out that when you pay $10 dollars to Spotify to listen to anything you want every month that the $10 dollars you play does not go directly to the artist you actually listen to. It goes into a collection, first used to pay Spotify for providing the service, then to pay artist who are getting the most streams. Very little, if any of it, goes to new rock bands, because their streams are small and only earn them very little money. So you may listen to a bunch of bands on Spotify, but your money won't go to them. It will go to Spotify, Drake, Ed Shareen, Adele, Beyoncť, Taylor Swift and others who have the highest streams.

That's why you should be the new rock bands album. They will actually get paid that way, where as they may not see any of your money that you pay to Spotify. These new artist have to reach a minimum number of streams in order to earn just once cent.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 21, 2018, 08:01:28 AM

Speaking at least for myself, buying those one or two songs from an album has generally led to artists getting money from me that wouldn't otherwise. I've started expanding a bit and completing some of those old albums in a quest to broaden my horizons, but take the countless one-hit wonders out there and consider that if it came down to having to buy the whole album to get the song, they'd have gotten nothing from me. I know $1.29 isn't exactly big bucks, but it's money that I would not have otherwise spent.

I do think that one benefit to the current industry is that it makes discovery so much easier than ever before. I'm able to use Apple Music to scout out stuff and see if I end up liking it. That led me to buy two Maroon 5 albums. I'll play them first and if I like them, awesome. If not, hey, money saved. At least I know, but I'd venture that more people will end up getting my money than would have prior to the introduction of this method.

Don't get me wrong: for the most part, I still think that streaming will be used to rob some artists blind that likely would have received money otherwise. I like to purchase the actual music to ensure that the right people get the money they've earned. I'm just saying that the streaming concept is not without merit.

Streaming is hurting the digital download method where you paid $1 dollar, sometimes $1.29 for the song. Those numbers are rapidly declining now thanks to streaming.

The artist made the most money when you had to buy the album. The majority of people would not sit on their hands in protest. They would get the whole album, if not after the first or second single, definitely by the third single.

In 1985, it cost about $10 dollars to by the album on vinyl or cassette. You could buy a vinyl single for $3.00. Three vinyl singles equaled the cost of the album. Take Michael Jacksons Thriller. If you purchased each of the 7 singles from that album. You would have spent $21 dollars, more than twice the cost of the album.

Adjusted for inflation, the $3 dollar vinyl single in 1985 would cost $7 dollars today in 2018. But individual track downloads are at best $1.29. Another way artist are being robbed.

To the artist, they will make the most money from you in the following order: 1. Buy their album. 2. Buy individual tracks from the album. 3. Streaming.

Most of my own family members and friends engage in streaming when it comes to music. Prior to streaming, many of my friends just engaged in file sharing. Some of my friends have not purchased a U2 CD since 2001. They won't pay for music and celebrate the fact that they found it and obtained it through the internet for free. I've explained to them why that's wrong, but they don't care. Its just too easy and U2 are rich they will often say. The only determining factor for them in obtaining music is how they can get it for free or at an extreme discount. So the fact that they have been drawn into streaming is perhaps a good thing since for many years before, they were paying nothing. But the artist is still getting robbed in this process.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: hollywoodswag on May 21, 2018, 08:29:23 AM

Those items cost more in the past, but consider that at least a portion of that cost went to materials, and you also need to consider labor costs at brick & mortar stores. Managing the digital side of things is much more cost-effective, and I'd imagine that the artist recoups a higher percentage of the sale price with an iTunes purchase than with a vinyl record. I think it's also easier to get your stuff out there without going through a record label, although you definitely sacrifice a bit on the promotion without a label behind you.

Consider that vinyl records are making at least a partial comeback, though, and those cost WAY more than CDs. All is not lost on the physical front.

Again, you don't really need to sell me on the concerns about streaming/subscription services. Apple Music is just a temporary solution for me as I save up to get albums. I just think that in the end, though, I'll wind up buying more because of it. It makes discovering music much easier, and that can drive sales.

I disagree that streaming is impacting the quality of music, though. I think we're just going through another era where the popular music sucks. I have hope that rock and roll will find a way to survive, though. It weathered the 80s after all, didn't it? ;)

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 21, 2018, 02:03:05 PM

Those items cost more in the past, but consider that at least a portion of that cost went to materials, and you also need to consider labor costs at brick & mortar stores. Managing the digital side of things is much more cost-effective, and I'd imagine that the artist recoups a higher percentage of the sale price with an iTunes purchase than with a vinyl record. I think it's also easier to get your stuff out there without going through a record label, although you definitely sacrifice a bit on the promotion without a label behind you.

Consider that vinyl records are making at least a partial comeback, though, and those cost WAY more than CDs. All is not lost on the physical front.

Again, you don't really need to sell me on the concerns about streaming/subscription services. Apple Music is just a temporary solution for me as I save up to get albums. I just think that in the end, though, I'll wind up buying more because of it. It makes discovering music much easier, and that can drive sales.

I disagree that streaming is impacting the quality of music, though. I think we're just going through another era where the popular music sucks. I have hope that rock and roll will find a way to survive, though. It weathered the 80s after all, didn't it? ;)

The physical CD only cost $1 dollar to make. So the digital album has a little advantage given that, but not a lot. In any event, digital albums are NOT selling. Albums regardless of format are in decline. Yes, Vinyl albums are making a comeback, but its a tiny market representing less than 1% of all albums sold, physical or digital. Vinyl albums will survive, but the money made from them won't save any artist or the industry as a whole. Its just enough to justify continue making them.

I-tunes unless they offer a streaming service will be on the way out.

Thats great that you think streaming is increasing your purchases of music, but for the overwhelming majority or people, they will NEVER purchase what they stream for free or for a small monthly fee. The artist agrees to the streaming service because they risk losing almost everything through file sharing and other methods of getting things for free.

Sort off topic, but in my opinion the 1980s was the greatest decade of music ever, especially for rock music. Greatest music year ever in history was 1983 based on the albums that were released in that year.

I think rock and even other music genres are being impacted by the new tech people have to listen to music because its depriving the industry of most of its money that was used before to help artist build their careers. Bands and groups regardless of genre are disappearing. Not enough money is being made to split it five ways in a band or group. Solo artist are overwhelming the charts now. That is a definite trend, and its because of the massive decline in money being made by the recording music business.

Music taste do change, but music taste is often dictated by what the music industry invest in with its limited funds. Technology surprisingly also dictates taste even though the average person does not realize it. People often talk about songs, and how many songs they have on this or that. They don't discuss the album anymore. The album used to be the staple of the music industry that defined who was hot or not. That has disappeared now. People are invested in songs, singles, and often don't know the album they came from, if their was even a parent album to begin with. But when people are more invest in just one or two songs by an artist, they are less invested in that artist, and less likely to want to see them in concert. This is not good for the artist and building a fan base.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on May 21, 2018, 05:44:17 PM

Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Thanks for sharing all this data, wons. Just to be clear, does the 2017 number include streaming equivalent album sales? Because, as I understand it, 1500 streams = 1 album sales.

No its just album sales in all formats, physical and digital. No streaming at all.

The problem with streaming, having a system of 1,500 streams = 1 album, is often those streams are only 1 or 2 songs from the album. Same with individual digital track downloads. Probably only 1 or 2 songs from the album. In both cases what is essentially representative of just interest in one or two songs, single performance is being added to album performance when none of these people have even listened to the album.

U2's Songs Of Experience is at 300,001 copies sold in the U.S. right now. Their streaming and individual track downloads would only add about 20,000 to that total.

I get what you're saying -- buying or streaming just a few songs isn't really the same as buying an album even if it now counts the same on the charts. However, since we were talking about artist compensation, I was wondering how album sales compare to 2001 if you count them the new way. Still less, I'm sure, but I'm curious about how much less.

Although music industry revenue is considerably lower than at it's peak, it has been heading up again over the last few years and it's thanks to paid streaming services, as noted in this article:

Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2001: 100Number of artist selling 1 million copies or more of an album(all formats), in the U.S., in 2017: 2

Thanks for sharing all this data, wons. Just to be clear, does the 2017 number include streaming equivalent album sales? Because, as I understand it, 1500 streams = 1 album sales.

No its just album sales in all formats, physical and digital. No streaming at all.

The problem with streaming, having a system of 1,500 streams = 1 album, is often those streams are only 1 or 2 songs from the album. Same with individual digital track downloads. Probably only 1 or 2 songs from the album. In both cases what is essentially representative of just interest in one or two songs, single performance is being added to album performance when none of these people have even listened to the album.

U2's Songs Of Experience is at 300,001 copies sold in the U.S. right now. Their streaming and individual track downloads would only add about 20,000 to that total.

I get what you're saying -- buying or streaming just a few songs isn't really the same as buying an album even if it now counts the same on the charts. However, since we were talking about artist compensation, I was wondering how album sales compare to 2001 if you count them the new way. Still less, I'm sure, but I'm curious about how much less.

Although music industry revenue is considerably lower than at it's peak, it has been heading up again over the last few years and it's thanks to paid streaming services, as noted in this article:

Thats just the industry as a whole. The drop for the top 100 selling albums each year has much greater than that. The million selling album or half million selling album has been nearly wiped out. That used to be the bench mark for making in the industry. The more popular artist were doing multi-platinum business.

Even worse in a way is looking at 2017 when just looking at physical + all digital downloads.

Way behind either way, plus it does not tell you what its like for individual artist especially no bands.

Another thing that's not factor in is the size of the U.S. economy and population in 1999 vs. 2017. Its a larger economy with more people buying stuff which means even a business that was holding steady per capita in sales would be selling more than they did in 1999. That makes the drop even worse.

I might be able to find some annual numbers for albums that would include streaming and digital downloads in the total sales for 2017.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 21, 2018, 06:49:46 PM

Ok, here were the top 25 albums in 2017 with streaming and individual track downloads added to the albums sales for equivalent sales numbers. This is a December 1 2016 to December 1 2017 chart period, slight different, but basically the same.

So with streaming figures and individual digital track downloads added in, you get 13 albums passing the 1 million mark. More than the two when just counting album sales both physical and digital, but still pretty low compared to 2001 when there were 100 albums they sold 1 million plus.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on May 21, 2018, 08:24:06 PM

Ok, here were the top 25 albums in 2017 with streaming and individual track downloads added to the albums sales for equivalent sales numbers. This is a December 1 2016 to December 1 2017 chart period, slight different, but basically the same.

So with streaming figures and individual digital track downloads added in, you get 13 albums passing the 1 million mark. More than the two when just counting album sales both physical and digital, but still pretty low compared to 2001 when there were 100 albums they sold 1 million plus.

Thanks very much for the info!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 21, 2018, 09:03:48 PM

I thought this was just me and Wons and we were probably annoying the rest of the list. But I see others have joined in and I am re-engaged.

But first, let me say, I don't like the argumentative tone and implications that people who don't buy CDs are guilty selfish terrible people. I think its great there are still people who find value in physical media and that is the way you want to give a nod to the musicians. But this obsession on CD sales as the yardstick is just misplaced. Except for the big artists (like U2) most major label artists get 10 to 15 cents per CD after the label clears all its costs. Until then they get nothing. This means many never get anything other than maybe an advance. They get much more from a $50 ticket at a show. I have read interviews with less well-known artists (the kind I mostly follow) and they often say they aren't making any money off streaming but they never made any off of CDs in the 90s either. Touring is the only place they've made money.

One thing you are seeing in the 90's, your baseline of comparison, is massive sales of CDs that were repeat purchases of something people had already purchased on cassette or vinyl. CD was such a great format that people were re-investing in titles they already had. I did a ton of that. Now they are all sitting in my closet gathering dust. There was much talk in the press back at the time of the CD Boom and that it would not be sustainable even if the internet was not a factor. I don't know how much and I'm not going to spend hours researching it but I know its a meaningful amount based on articles that I read back in the day. Technology giveth and technology taketh.

Also, the lamenting of the loss of album sales because now any song can be purchased is a bit more complicated than "now the record companies are getting ripped off". For years, the labels released albums with 1 or 2 hit singles and a CD of filler that quite honestly was lousy and everyone who bought alot of CDs in the 90s knows it. Guess what, the labels knew it too. But they refused to sell the singles (in many cases) because that was their leverage to make you buy a bunch of half-hearted junk. But worse than that was the practice of selling a greatest hits CD and putting one unreleased song on it to get the die-hard fans to buy a whole CD of music they already had. I have multiple copies of so many U2 tracks on various releases its almost funny.

Finally, artists can now make a pro-quality CD in their home, have it replicated for a dollar or two and sell them at a show and keep all the profits for themselves. No more big label budget required to produce an album of good music. And don't tell me that doesn't count. I've bought lots of great indie music off bandcamp, made at home that blows away most of the major label cookie cutter stuff. Fantastic artists are turning out great music. I don't care how many major label releases are out there because that isn't really ever the music that has interested me that much. This is the future of music. It is much more full circle back to before music became so crassly commercialized.

Again, I'm not even really arguing with you about sales figures. Wons, you keep showing those and I get it. I just don't find it terribly relevant. We get it, CD sales are dying. I'm just saying it is not going to kill the supply of good music. People make music because they have it in them and they want to share it. Yes they should get paid for their efforts but historically, artists have not been compensated by a business model except from the 1940s on. They have been supported by patrons and that is perfectly valid and feasible, because most artists cannot make it on commercial terms at all anyway. I've bought into PledgeMusic campaigns, tickets, etc. No, not every band I listen to comes close enough for me to see them but I turn up for the ones that do and assume others are doing the same in other cities because alot of these guys are still doing it after 10 years. My point is CDs will eventually disappear, as will DVDs and Blu-rays. Its not the only, or even the best, way to support an artist even now.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 21, 2018, 10:05:23 PM

I thought this was just me and Wons and we were probably annoying the rest of the list. But I see others have joined in and I am re-engaged.

But first, let me say, I don't like the argumentative tone and implications that people who don't buy CDs are guilty selfish terrible people. I think its great there are still people who find value in physical media and that is the way you want to give a nod to the musicians. But this obsession on CD sales as the yardstick is just misplaced. Except for the big artists (like U2) most major label artists get 10 to 15 cents per CD after the label clears all its costs. Until then they get nothing. This means many never get anything other than maybe an advance. They get much more from a $50 ticket at a show. I have read interviews with less well-known artists (the kind I mostly follow) and they often say they aren't making any money off streaming but they never made any off of CDs in the 90s either. Touring is the only place they've made money.

One thing you are seeing in the 90's, your baseline of comparison, is massive sales of CDs that were repeat purchases of something people had already purchased on cassette or vinyl. CD was such a great format that people were re-investing in titles they already had. I did a ton of that. Now they are all sitting in my closet gathering dust. There was much talk in the press back at the time of the CD Boom and that it would not be sustainable even if the internet was not a factor. I don't know how much and I'm not going to spend hours researching it but I know its a meaningful amount based on articles that I read back in the day. Technology giveth and technology taketh.

Also, the lamenting of the loss of album sales because now any song can be purchased is a bit more complicated than "now the record companies are getting ripped off". For years, the labels released albums with 1 or 2 hit singles and a CD of filler that quite honestly was lousy and everyone who bought alot of CDs in the 90s knows it. Guess what, the labels knew it too. But they refused to sell the singles (in many cases) because that was their leverage to make you buy a bunch of half-hearted junk. But worse than that was the practice of selling a greatest hits CD and putting one unreleased song on it to get the die-hard fans to buy a whole CD of music they already had. I have multiple copies of so many U2 tracks on various releases its almost funny.

Finally, artists can now make a pro-quality CD in their home, have it replicated for a dollar or two and sell them at a show and keep all the profits for themselves. No more big label budget required to produce an album of good music. And don't tell me that doesn't count. I've bought lots of great indie music off bandcamp, made at home that blows away most of the major label cookie cutter stuff. Fantastic artists are turning out great music. I don't care how many major label releases are out there because that isn't really ever the music that has interested me that much. This is the future of music. It is much more full circle back to before music became so crassly commercialized.

Again, I'm not even really arguing with you about sales figures. Wons, you keep showing those and I get it. I just don't find it terribly relevant. We get it, CD sales are dying. I'm just saying it is not going to kill the supply of good music. People make music because they have it in them and they want to share it. Yes they should get paid for their efforts but historically, artists have not been compensated by a business model except from the 1940s on. They have been supported by patrons and that is perfectly valid and feasible, because most artists cannot make it on commercial terms at all anyway. I've bought into PledgeMusic campaigns, tickets, etc. No, not every band I listen to comes close enough for me to see them but I turn up for the ones that do and assume others are doing the same in other cities because alot of these guys are still doing it after 10 years. My point is CDs will eventually disappear, as will DVDs and Blu-rays. Its not the only, or even the best, way to support an artist even now.

I'm not arguing about CD's, I'm arguing about albums regardless of format. There are digital albums out there. All of the sales figures I've put up include DIGITAL ALBUMS, yet above you have yet to acknowledge or understand this. You keep talking about CD's, but I'm talking about albums on either digital or physical formats. Digital albums are doing just as poorly has physical albums. The two combined are doing poorly.

There were some artist who may have only made a 10 or 15 cents per CD, but most were making at least 10% of the list price. In U2's case it was 25%. For most of rock history that is where the artist would make their money because the cost of touring would eat up all the expenses. Tours would often lose money. The tour was done to PROMOTE THE ALBUM and the new music because that is where the money was made. Its only post 1995, that artist, overwhelmingly big artist, make profits far in excess of their recorded music.

MC Hammer made his own albums and sold them from the trunk of his car before he became big. That's nothing new at all. But he like most artist made far more money once they were signed to a lable.

This is what the U.S. music industry made in 1999 in 2017 dollars:

1999 - $22 Billion

Keep in mind that was from a smaller population and economy.

2017 - $8.7 Billion dollars despite the fact that the economy and population are larger.

You've yet to name any of these artist who you claim are just doing so great. Why?

Its obvious artist are getting robbed. I have family members and friends that just stream and yes I've told them that I think its wrong. The artist is being robbed.

Obviously, when something like streaming is so popular and inexpensive to the consumer, people will say or do anything to defend it. Its not been good for the vast majority of artist. They have been forced into this because its better than losing the money to people that just file share or find other ways of copying for free. Its the least bad option artist have. These are dark times for the recorded music industry. Very dark times if your a band or a group. Touring is not easy and the overwhelming vast majority of new artist can't charge $50 dollars for tickets.

Care to tell any of the above bands that things are easy and great, far better than it was 10 or 20 years ago?

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 22, 2018, 04:37:30 AM

No soundscan sales information yet for Songs Of Experience this week, its 24th week on the album sales only chart, both physical and digital. But, its chart position is #65, up from #67 last week. So its possible this weeks sales were in the 2,500 to 3,000 range.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on May 22, 2018, 12:09:10 PM

I've only been talking about physical CDs. I still buy downloads, mostly from Bandcamp. I then load them to my Amazon music account so I can listen to them along with all of the other music. 80% of what I listen to, I already have purchased the CD years ago. If you will remember, this started with "I no longer buy physical CDs."

The music streaming services are all losing money. After they pay royalties they can't even cover their infrastructure cost. Why is this? Its because not enough people are subscribing. Contrast this with Netflix, which is profitable. Same business model. Are you okay with people streaming video? Or do they need to buy DVD's in order to be fair to the artists? Netflix is making money because they have way more subscribers. As streaming ramps up it will reach this equilibrium. We are in a period of transition. Technology drives change and it takes awhile for the business models to adjust. Music is not dying.

This is also going on with portrait photographers. They charge a fee for taking the pictures, which does not pay for their costs, and then they sell you prints. But people don't really want prints much anymore. They want the digital images. So the photographers make you buy a minimum number of prints in order to get the images on a flash drive and then the prints just get stuffed in a drawer. They need to change their business model and just charge a flat fee for taking the pictures and doing whatever photoshop stuff they do. It takes time for people to understand the market and adapt. And there is always this period of transistion where some people still want prints and other people don't. This is what is going on with music.

I remember when people thought film would never give way completely to digital cameras.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 23, 2018, 01:31:59 AM

I've only been talking about physical CDs. I still buy downloads, mostly from Bandcamp. I then load them to my Amazon music account so I can listen to them along with all of the other music. 80% of what I listen to, I already have purchased the CD years ago. If you will remember, this started with "I no longer buy physical CDs."

The music streaming services are all losing money. After they pay royalties they can't even cover their infrastructure cost. Why is this? Its because not enough people are subscribing. Contrast this with Netflix, which is profitable. Same business model. Are you okay with people streaming video? Or do they need to buy DVD's in order to be fair to the artists? Netflix is making money because they have way more subscribers. As streaming ramps up it will reach this equilibrium. We are in a period of transition. Technology drives change and it takes awhile for the business models to adjust. Music is not dying.

This is also going on with portrait photographers. They charge a fee for taking the pictures, which does not pay for their costs, and then they sell you prints. But people don't really want prints much anymore. They want the digital images. So the photographers make you buy a minimum number of prints in order to get the images on a flash drive and then the prints just get stuffed in a drawer. They need to change their business model and just charge a flat fee for taking the pictures and doing whatever photoshop stuff they do. It takes time for people to understand the market and adapt. And there is always this period of transistion where some people still want prints and other people don't. This is what is going on with music.

I remember when people thought film would never give way completely to digital cameras.

Actually, you entered this thread with the following response to the fact that an album I purchased in 1991 at 15 dollars would be nearly 30 dollars adjusting for inflation in 2018.

Quote

They may deserve to be paid but how much? Your Achtung Baby example is not really relevant. Before the advent of recorded music, there were relatively few ďprofessionalĒ musicians. Most people who were entertained by music were entertained by music they made themselves or music that was made by their family and friends. The 1930s to the present-ish may be a brief period of time when a significant number of people could get filthy rich by making and selling recorded music, much as U2 has. Iím not sure that ever really made sense. It was an artifact of a publishing business model that is now being disrupted by technology. The era of dreaming of making it big in an all or nothing way is ending. On the other hand, there is perhaps more opportunity for a passionate musician to make a small or moderate living off live performances, merchandise, and streaming revenue. I realize the streaming model is not really doing much for any musicians right now but it may (hopefully) evolve to that point. Iím in my 50s and I really donít like collecting cluttering objects either. Its just so much paper and plastic waste.

This entire thread is about album sales of "SONGS OF EXPERIENCE". These albums sold may be DIGITAL or PHYSICAL. The example of the cost of Achtung Baby album in 1991 vs. the inflation adjusted price in 2018 was NOT about the format it was in, but about the band being PAID for the album.

When you file share, burn a CD, or obtain an album for free whatever the method and whatever the format, the band does not get paid for their work. When you stream an album through Spotify, the band might see a tiny fraction of what they would have made if you purchased the album. If your the only person streaming the album though, they will not see one cent from the ten dollars you paid to Spotify.

Finally, for better or worse, streaming has taken over the music industry. The U.S. recording music industry made $8.72 Billion dollars in 2017. Only $3 Billion of that figure came from physical product or digital downloads. The rest was streaming. That's great for Spotify and other companies that provide the service, but bad for most artist who make much less from this system of payment than from physical sales or digital downloads. 65% of the U.S. recorded music industry is now just streaming and that figure is rapidly growing.

Remember that the 1999 figure for what the industry made adjusted into 2017 dollars was over $22 Billion.

Today with streaming services, people on a daily basis pay to play an unlimited amount of songs on any given day when the same for the same price in 1985 would only get them one song played on a juke box. The consumer today is either getting their music for free, or paying a small fraction of what consumers once paid for music. The impact is far less money for the business as a whole, and far less money for artist. Less money for artist mean less people attempt it as a career. With less people and talent going into the industry, the quality naturally declines. Catalog music, meaning music that is older than two years old, makes up more than 50% of digital and physical sales today. 20 years ago it made up less than 20%.

Times are not good for new artist when their new album sells less than half of what Metallica's Black album from 1991 does in any given week. That includes digital sales by the way.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 26, 2018, 11:59:14 AM

Sales figures for this week finally came in. Songs of Experience is at #65 in its 24th week on chart in the United States on the Billboard 200 album(digital and physical) sales only chart. It sold 2,564 copies this week.

Total sales after 24 weeks in the United States is 302,565. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on May 30, 2018, 10:53:50 AM

Songs Of Experience falls slightly to #68 from #65 last week on the top album(digital and physical) sales chart in the United States. Actual sales figures have not been released yet. They were posted late last week and that may be the same situation this week as well. Were probably talking about another 2,500 copies sold this past week roughly for a total of 305,000 to date in the United States.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 02, 2018, 08:45:35 AM

The Neilson Soundscan numbers(all top 200 albums) were not leaked this week. But I was able to find a very good estimate based on known sales for the #66 album at 2,900 copies and the #77 album at 2,400 copies. Songs of Experience was at #68, so I think based on the known sales from the other positions that 2,800 copies is a good estimate and I'll use that in the list with an (E) for estimate just to note the figure is not exact. Its a very close estimate though of the true number.

Total sales after 25 weeks in the United States is 305,365. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 05, 2018, 07:51:52 AM

No soundscan numbers so far this week, but we do know that Songs Of Experience dropped out of the top 100. Its probably still close to the #100 position, maybe #110. I base that on the fact that its at #80 on the TOP CURRENT ALBUM chart which only ranks albums that are NOT older than 2 years in sales. It dropped from #63 last week to #80 on that chart. The #80 position on the TOP CURRENT ALBUMS chart two weeks ago was at #108 on the regular top album sales chart selling about 1,800 copies. So I'll use that as my estimate for this weeks sales unless a better estimate arrives or we finally get soundscan numbers for this week.

Total sales after 26 weeks in the United States is 307,165. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Soundscan data is getting harder to get according to the source I get the data from on a particular FORUM. We may have to estimate weekly sales from here on out, which gets much more difficult when the album drops out of the top 100. Billboard publishes charts for Top album sales and Top Current album sales, but only the first 100 positions and no sales numbers. There is also a rock album sales chart and an alternative albums sales chart, but its very difficult to make any meaningful estimate from those charts because there are not many rock albums and half the list may not even rank in the top 200 albums in sales.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Johnny Feathers on June 05, 2018, 08:43:04 AM

I'm curious as to the nature of this conversation. Is this to say that SOE is selling poorly? Is anyone particularly surprised by how it's selling (or not)? I can't say I follow this stuff or particularly care one way or another, but they're a band that hasn't had a legitimate hit in like 15 years at this point--they'll sell to the die-hards, and the ticket-buyers of their current tour, but not much else.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: laoghaire on June 05, 2018, 09:09:39 AM

Wons is just tracking out of curiosity, not to make a case for any point of view.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 05, 2018, 10:14:10 AM

I'm curious as to the nature of this conversation. Is this to say that SOE is selling poorly? Is anyone particularly surprised by how it's selling (or not)? I can't say I follow this stuff or particularly care one way or another, but they're a band that hasn't had a legitimate hit in like 15 years at this point--they'll sell to the die-hards, and the ticket-buyers of their current tour, but not much else.

Well thats an interesting question. I'd argue that SOE is selling well or ok if were just talking about album sales(both physical and digital). The problem is that album sales for all artist are rapidly declining. Most of the general public does not purchase recorded music anymore. They obtain it for free through the internet by 1. File Sharing, 2. some form of free download, 3. or they stream it. Streaming is what is really taking over. Some of it is free, some of it is people paying into a service. Streaming is over 60% of what the recording music industry now generates money from.

U2 does poorly when it comes to streaming and also individual digital track downloads. So album sales(physical and digital) are the best way to check on how well the band is doing because that is the format that 90% of the fans of U2 are using.

I think it would be great if U2 could reach 500,000 in sales in the United States. They are 192,000 copies away from that goal. I think its the maximum they could be expected to do in terms of sales, hit or no hit. Having a hit today is not likely to increase album sales that much as it will likely just come from general public and casual fans who have long since switched to streaming all their music.

Since January 1, 2018, these are the top 20 selling albums(DIGITAL and physical combined) in the United States after 21 weeks:

Based on current sales, by week 26, the half way point of the year, there will still only be 1 album that has sold more than 500,000 copies(digital and physical).

Song Of Experience sold most of its 307,000 copies back in December 2017, so its obviously not in the top 20 for a chart that just begins with sales starting in January 2018.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 12, 2018, 05:58:57 AM

No soundscan information so far this week. Songs Of Experience is not in the top 100 selling albums again this week. On the top CURRENT album selling chart it dropped from #80 to #85. So I estimated sales this week at 1,700 compared to the estimate of 1,800 last week. Typically, the #100 album sales about 2,000 copies on the top album sales chart and the #200 album sales about 1,250 copies. So without soundscan information, these rough estimates will continue, but their probably not far off the real numbers based on past soundscan information for the various chart positions.

Wons, thanks for continuing to post this information. I, for one, have enjoyed reading the updates and understanding the context for the numbers.

Your welcome. I actually enjoy looking it up and posting it as well as having a place to look at this information all together for now and later on. The album has not run out of steam yet. Possible boost in sales could come from sudden unexpected success of a new single, Grammy nominations later this year, grammy wins next year, and a possible 2nd leg of the tour next year in the United States. If the album is able to get to 450,000 in soundscan sales, that will likely be a enough for a GOLD record certification as the streaming and individual track downloads, as well as album shipped but not yet sold could make up the extra 50,000. But still a long way to go and the album will need some type of a boost in sales to get there.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: superdragtn on June 13, 2018, 08:22:28 AM

Does U2 do poorly in streaming services? Is there information available to demonstrate how much/often they're accessed on streaming sites? A quick look at my Spotify shows they have 9,395,512 monthly listeners. Recalling the SOI incident, I remember one article that said something to the effect that 27 million people accessed at least one song and another millions of people downloaded the whole album. About that time there was some study performed that showed U2 were one of the top artists streamed. I tried to google and find these sources but struck out so if my memory if failing me, feel free to comment a correction.

Physical album sales and even digital downloads are such a poor measure for the quality of an album now. Success of an album is even harder to define. The album format itself is suffering from the ŗ la carte option of streaming services. Freedom looks like too many choices. There are still people, such as myself, who still prefer the physical album either in CD or vinyl. I've been surprised at even people my age (early 30's) who have shunned physical copies and gone all digital or streaming. My surprise is mostly that we grew up in the physical media days and lived through the transition to digital music. It seems to me that the move to digital music and its instant accessibility has cheapened the product to the consumer. If something is easy to get, forget and throw away, it won't hold much value. I remember a time when a music release was an event. The local independent record store in my hometown used to do midnight release parties up until the early 2000s. It was always a fun event with people queuing up outside. The last one I attended was in 2000 for ATYLCB. In the digital age, there's no such communal activity and the consumer doesn't value the product as much.

There may not be a firm answer to just how much U2's newer material is popular or given attention to. Some type of data released by the big streaming services on the number of people who have streamed their music may provide some answers.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 13, 2018, 08:41:07 AM

Does U2 do poorly in streaming services? Is there information available to demonstrate how much/often they're accessed on streaming sites? A quick look at my Spotify shows they have 9,395,512 monthly listeners. Recalling the SOI incident, I remember one article that said something to the effect that 27 million people accessed at least one song and another millions of people downloaded the whole album. About that time there was some study performed that showed U2 were one of the top artists streamed. I tried to google and find these sources but struck out so if my memory if failing me, feel free to comment a correction.

Physical album sales and even digital downloads are such a poor measure for the quality of an album now. Success of an album is even harder to define. The album format itself is suffering from the ŗ la carte option of streaming services. Freedom looks like too many choices. There are still people, such as myself, who still prefer the physical album either in CD or vinyl. I've been surprised at even people my age (early 30's) who have shunned physical copies and gone all digital or streaming. My surprise is mostly that we grew up in the physical media days and lived through the transition to digital music. It seems to me that the move to digital music and its instant accessibility has cheapened the product to the consumer. If something is easy to get, forget and throw away, it won't hold much value. I remember a time when a music release was an event. The local independent record store in my hometown used to do midnight release parties up until the early 2000s. It was always a fun event with people queuing up outside. The last one I attended was in 2000 for ATYLCB. In the digital age, there's no such communal activity and the consumer doesn't value the product as much.

There may not be a firm answer to just how much U2's newer material is popular or given attention to. Some type of data released by the big streaming services on the number of people who have streamed their music may provide some answers.

Unfortunately, U2 do very poorly when it comes to streaming. We know this because Billboard tracks this and adds it in to its main Billboard 200 chart now. Streaming and individual track downloads account for LESS than 10% of the points they get for the album. Over 90% of their points comes from album sales, both physical and digital. Most popular artist get the majority of their points from streaming and individual track downloads.

In this thread, I'm just tracking the Album sales, both physical and digital and the position on the top album sales ONLY chart, both physical and digital sales. Individual track downloads and streaming are not counted on this chart. Its the old top album sales chart that was used from the 1950s until 2014 when they developed a system to include streaming and individual track downloads for the album in addition to digital and physical album sales.

Another place to look at how well U2 does in streaming is youtube. The top song from the album, You're the Best Thing About Me only has about 12 million streams after 8 months. A popular artist like Imagine Dragons will have about 400 million streams each for the latest singles from their albums.

The place where U2 does well, is still in the album sales category, BOTH physical and digital. Its not great relative to the past or distant past, but it is somewhat good to a degree compared to other artist in 2018. Their streaming and individual track download numbers are so small that they are nearly irrelevant. For example, in the first week of release, the album sold the equivalent of 186,000 units in the United States. 180,000 of that came from actual digital album and physical album purchases. Only 6,000 came from individual track downloads and streaming. 10 individual track downloads = ONE album sale. 1,500 streams = ONE album sale. So as you can see for U2, those numbers are tiny, while for other artist, they form the majority of their totals.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 14, 2018, 05:46:54 AM

Surprise, we finally got soundscan data for this week. Songs Of Experience is at #112 with sales of 1,851 copies. That's physical and digital copies combined.

Total sales after 27 weeks in the United States is 309,016. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 15, 2018, 09:25:55 AM

Just got soundscan data for week 25 and week 26. The estimates were close, but now the numbers are exact. Total exact sales for digital and physical albums sold combined for Songs Of Experience in the United States is 308,784 copies after 27 weeks on chart. Only thing missing is the chart position in week 20 and week 26, both out of the top 100.

Awesome. I hope we get soundscan number this week so we can see the official total of sales. I'll do a rough estimate if we don't get it.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: miracle_al on June 22, 2018, 12:06:30 PM

Do you think it's the result of the U2 Channel on Sirius XM, which started on June 1, I believe?

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 23, 2018, 01:38:17 PM

Unfortunately not exact soundscan sales for this week. But I got a pretty good estimate and its 3,000 copies about 200 copies higher than I would have estimated. In week 28, the album rebounded from #112 to #54!

Total sales after 28 weeks in the United States is 311,784. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 26, 2018, 08:34:31 AM

Songs Of Experience falls from #54 last week to #71 this week on the top album sales chart in the United States. No soundscan data yet, so this weeks sales are estimated based on what the #71 album sold two weeks ago, the last time we had soundscan data.

Total sales after 29 weeks in the United States is 314,184. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: HertfordshireU2 on June 29, 2018, 01:56:34 AM

Thank you wons for giving us an update of the sales of Songs Of Experience in the US. Have you got any estimates on how many units Songs Of Experience has sold globally? Thank you.

Title: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Luzita on June 29, 2018, 09:12:38 PM

The last time SOE was on Media Traffic was 6/8 and it had sold 1,218,000 globally. It had been selling 5,000 a week for several weeks prior to that and I wouldnít be surprised if it has continued to do so, but the lowest selling album thatís listed at the moment is doing 8000 a week.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 29, 2018, 10:34:05 PM

The last time SOE was on Media Traffic was 6/8 and it had sold 1,218,000 globally. It had been selling 5,000 a week for several weeks prior to that and I wouldnít be surprised if it has continued to do so, but the lowest selling album thatís listed at the moment is doing $8000 a week.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the best estimate I have seen as well. The shipment/sales total at the end of 2017 was either 1.3 million or 1.5 million worldwide. A big part of that figure was of course shipments of physical product since the album had only been out 1 month.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on June 29, 2018, 10:36:23 PM

Thank you wons for giving us an update of the sales of Songs Of Experience in the US. Have you got any estimates on how many units Songs Of Experience has sold globally? Thank you.

Like mentioned above, 1,218,000 sales physical +digital. If you add in the physical shipments not sold yet they may be at 1.6 million or 1.7 million.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 03, 2018, 10:36:44 AM

Songs Of Experience increases on the U.S. Top Album sales chart this week from #71 to #62. No soundscan figures reported. I estimate about 2,600 in sales based on the last time we had soundscan data for position #62. Total sales are now over 316,000 in the United States, which includes both physical and digital copies.

Total sales after 30 weeks in the United States is 316,784. This includes BOTH physical and digital copies.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 10, 2018, 11:56:20 AM

Songs Of Experience does a big nosedive this week and leaves the top 100 top album sales chart having previously been at #62 last week. No soundscan information this week so I don't know exactly where between position 101 and 200 it fell too. It is not on the top 100 CURRENT albums chart either which edits out any albums older than 2 years. So that means it did not just barely miss the top 100, but fell a bit further. Its still on the smaller Rock albums and Alternative album charts, but had big drops on those as well. I estimate 1,500 in sales. Albums between 101 and 200 sell about 1,200(#200) to 2,000(#101) copies. So without any more data, I think 1,500 copies is a good estimate. With the touring leaving the States, and Love Is Bigger... not making a lot of progress in getting airplay, the album may drop completely off the chart in the next few weeks. I'm going to assume that if it can't make the smaller rock albums chart and alternative albums chart that there wouldn't be any way it could still be charted in the top 200. We'll see what happens though and hope that maybe another single or grammy nominations at the end of this year can give the album some more life on the charts.

Itís pretty clear you regard both the album and the thread as the opposite of amazing, but it has 15 pages because not everyone is you. Plenty of people are getting something out of it.

If the thread doesnít appeal, why are you here? Why not find a topic that might (we all hope) inspire a actual contribution?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Iíd already forgotten its existence.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 12, 2018, 02:24:40 AM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: miracle_al on July 12, 2018, 02:04:45 PM

Very interesting facts and perspective, wons.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Fastcars12 on July 12, 2018, 07:45:18 PM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 13, 2018, 06:21:08 AM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: hotty375 on July 13, 2018, 06:27:16 AM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

It would be interesting to find out how people on here 'bought' their music? Or bought SOE specifically. I have a paid up Spotify as I'm living abroad, but have the deluxe CD waiting for me in my own country. And as much as I don't agree with how Spotify distributes to artists ( totally unfair!-and skewed to suit the big record labels), it suits my dynamic just now. But there's no way I would pay individual prices for a single track or album, although I have for smaller artists I like ( eg Damian O'Neill from The Undertones recent solo album-may as well give it a plug lol)

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: McSwilly on July 13, 2018, 07:59:58 AM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

I find all of this just to be rationalizing a substandard album that was not well received. AND lets by accurate - a large % of the sales were from ticket buyers. I LOVE U2, but would not have paid for this album, I only got 4 copies because I purchased tickets to see them a few times on the tour.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 13, 2018, 12:58:17 PM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

I find all of this just to be rationalizing a substandard album that was not well received. AND lets by accurate - a large % of the sales were from ticket buyers. I LOVE U2, but would not have paid for this album, I only got 4 copies because I purchased tickets to see them a few times on the tour.

Well this is more of a sales thread than whether you like the music on the album. I love the album and think its great and find it disappointing that more dedicated fans have not purchased it or listened to it on whatever format that use for music.

Still though, selling 320,000 copies in the United States these days is not bad especially when you look at the top sellers released so far in 2018 above. Its just that the majority of people don't actually buy music anymore, they just stream it. But for U2 and those interested in U2, album purchases, both physical and digital is where you will find the vast majority of the business activity. There has been very little streaming activity for the album though especially when compared with other albums and artist, many of whom are much younger.

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 14, 2018, 10:19:08 AM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

I find all of this just to be rationalizing a substandard album that was not well received. AND lets by accurate - a large % of the sales were from ticket buyers. I LOVE U2, but would not have paid for this album, I only got 4 copies because I purchased tickets to see them a few times on the tour.

Well this is more of a sales thread than whether you like the music on the album. I love the album and think its great and find it disappointing that more dedicated fans have not purchased it or listened to it on whatever format that use for music.

Still though, selling 320,000 copies in the United States these days is not bad especially when you look at the top sellers released so far in 2018 above. Its just that the majority of people don't actually buy music anymore, they just stream it. But for U2 and those interested in U2, album purchases, both physical and digital is where you will find the vast majority of the business activity. There has been very little streaming activity for the album though especially when compared with other albums and artist, many of whom are much younger.

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Wons, with total respect, I would like to try to explain to you why I believe that is.

One obvious reason is that a CD came with your ticket. But beyond that...

I donít even own a CD player any more. The one in my car doesnít work. I didnít even request the free CDs that came with my tickets. I simply have no use for a physical CD and Iím not the collecting type. I see it as a symbolic, if inconsequential, waste of natural resources (for me personally). I donít see it as material to me or U2 as a show of financial support to throw them another $10 when i just gave them $400 and they offered to send me two free CDs AND they are (collectively) billionaires. When I see local bands, guess what? I still donít buy their CD. But I do put $20 in their tip jar. I essentially buy the CD but let them keep the plastic. If I really like the band I may buy the CD and rip it on my computer so I can upload it to my music locker and stream it.

The streaming model is not perfect for music yet. The streaming services are all losing money. Yet it is working for video, even though the cost of production for movie and TV is greater than that for music. Why is that? Its because Netflix has many more subscribers than the music services. In the old world before the internet, very few people spent $120/year on CDs. Members of this forum are not typical music consumers. Now, in the internet age, the industry has to get people who were buying 2 or 3 CDs a year to pay $10/month for streaming. But it is growing fast and investors think it will get there. Time will tell.

Another thing I think people misunderstand about streaming and artist compensation. On average, artists receive from .006 to .008 per stream. That is about equal to listening to your CD 200 times. (Assuming 12 songs on a CD and only .005.) If you listen to SOE more than 200 times you are paying U2 less than I am if I do the same over a streaming service. And yes, Iíve listened to all my U2 albums that much! Plus the old ones I bought on vinyl, then on CD, then some on CD again. Now I pay monthly to stream and 90% of what I stream I already bought on CD back when I was still using CDs. U2 is still getting paid by me every time I listen to New Years Day.

Now thatís not the same for new acts or recordins and Iím not saying streaming is great and CDs are bad. All I am saying is the model is changing and there are many ways to support artists. Frankly, U2 is doing just fine and I play by their rules. For smaller artists there are other options. Iíve contributed to PledgeMusic campaigns for struggling but well-known artists. That option didnít exist before the internet. Artists at least have a chance now to be heard without getting a record deal. Only a tiny fraction of artists ever got deals. Times are changing and the industry will figure it out. In the future CDs will be like vinyl...a little revenue stream from a very small number of people. I spend more on music today than I ever have. Its not going away, the revenue model is just changing and it will work out for Nashville just like it is for Hollywood once things fully transition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 14, 2018, 11:15:50 AM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

I find all of this just to be rationalizing a substandard album that was not well received. AND lets by accurate - a large % of the sales were from ticket buyers. I LOVE U2, but would not have paid for this album, I only got 4 copies because I purchased tickets to see them a few times on the tour.

Well this is more of a sales thread than whether you like the music on the album. I love the album and think its great and find it disappointing that more dedicated fans have not purchased it or listened to it on whatever format that use for music.

Still though, selling 320,000 copies in the United States these days is not bad especially when you look at the top sellers released so far in 2018 above. Its just that the majority of people don't actually buy music anymore, they just stream it. But for U2 and those interested in U2, album purchases, both physical and digital is where you will find the vast majority of the business activity. There has been very little streaming activity for the album though especially when compared with other albums and artist, many of whom are much younger.

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Wons, with total respect, I would like to try to explain to you why I believe that is.

One obvious reason is that a CD came with your ticket. But beyond that...

I donít even own a CD player any more. The one in my car doesnít work. I didnít even request the free CDs that came with my tickets. I simply have no use for a physical CD and Iím not the collecting type. I see it as a symbolic, if inconsequential, waste of natural resources (for me personally). I donít see it as material to me or U2 as a show of financial support to throw them another $10 when i just gave them $400 and they offered to send me two free CDs AND they are (collectively) billionaires. When I see local bands, guess what? I still donít buy their CD. But I do put $20 in their tip jar. I essentially buy the CD but let them keep the plastic. If I really like the band I may buy the CD and rip it on my computer so I can upload it to my music locker and stream it.

The streaming model is not perfect for music yet. The streaming services are all losing money. Yet it is working for video, even though the cost of production for movie and TV is greater than that for music. Why is that? Its because Netflix has many more subscribers than the music services. In the old world before the internet, very few people spent $120/year on CDs. Members of this forum are not typical music consumers. Now, in the internet age, the industry has to get people who were buying 2 or 3 CDs a year to pay $10/month for streaming. But it is growing fast and investors think it will get there. Time will tell.

Another thing I think people misunderstand about streaming and artist compensation. On average, artists receive from .006 to .008 per stream. That is about equal to listening to your CD 200 times. (Assuming 12 songs on a CD and only .005.) If you listen to SOE more than 200 times you are paying U2 less than I am if I do the same over a streaming service. And yes, Iíve listened to all my U2 albums that much! Plus the old ones I bought on vinyl, then on CD, then some on CD again. Now I pay monthly to stream and 90% of what I stream I already bought on CD back when I was still using CDs. U2 is still getting paid by me every time I listen to New Years Day.

Now thatís not the same for new acts or recordins and Iím not saying streaming is great and CDs are bad. All I am saying is the model is changing and there are many ways to support artists. Frankly, U2 is doing just fine and I play by their rules. For smaller artists there are other options. Iíve contributed to PledgeMusic campaigns for struggling but well-known artists. That option didnít exist before the internet. Artists at least have a chance now to be heard without getting a record deal. Only a tiny fraction of artists ever got deals. Times are changing and the industry will figure it out. In the future CDs will be like vinyl...a little revenue stream from a very small number of people. I spend more on music today than I ever have. Its not going away, the revenue model is just changing and it will work out for Nashville just like it is for Hollywood once things fully transition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Were talking about ALBUM sales in this thread. Do your realize that means DIGITAL albums TOO. Probably about half of U2's album sales are in the DIGITAL format. So I don't understand why you keep going back to CD's, plastic, physical product etc. You can get the album in a digital format or physical format when you purchased the ticket or whenever you purchased the album if you purchased it. But not everyone requested the album when they purchased the ticket. You had to select the option.

Growing up most people I knew purchased multiple Compact Disk, Audio Cassettes, or Vinyl albums/records every month. By the end of high school or the start of college, most people I knew had collections of several hundred CD's, Tapes, records etc. None of us would have been able to build collections of music like that at just four albums a year. The peak of the music industry was in the year 2000-2001. In the year 2001, there were 100 albums that sold over 1 million copies during the 12 months of 2001. Last year in 2017, there were only 2 that did and that includes digital copies. So far this year there is one, but that will likely be it.

The recording industry in the United States is making less thatn 1/4 of what it used to make in the year 2000 once you adjust for inflation, even with all the streaming and individual track downloads etc. The industry has been destroyed as any industry would thats lost 75% of its business. The industry should be 25% to 50% larger than it was in the year 2000 do to population growth and the growing wealth of the country. But insttead, its only 1/4 the size it once was despite all the attempts to try and find a way to fix the problem of people getting their music for free essentially.

Finally with streaming, the ultimate comparison is someone putting a quarter into a Juke Box in 1985 and getting to hear one song. By comparison in 2018, that same 25 cents buys any music you want to listen to for the next 24 hours continuously. Thats terrible for artist and its why there are fewer bands today than there were in 1985. Most artist today are solo artist and they are making far less money than their peers in 1985. Artist today are scraping by to survive. Most people don't go the band route anymore because what little money is made is split 4 or 5 ways. Its part of why new rock music has declined because that type of music usually comes from a band format rather than a solo artist. Much easier to support the solo dance/pop, hip-hop, an rap artist. No band, no band equipment, just the electronics of the studio and pre-recorded tracks if there is a "live" performance.

The industry is dead compared to where it was back in the year 2000 or earlier and I have stacks of numbers, and statistics to prove it. Larry Mullen Jr. even advised his children against going into the industry like he did because the chances of making it today are so slim compared to decades ago. Sting had two of children go into the industry, but despite good talent and lots of help, neither of them were able to succeed, never making enough money to do anything more than put food in their mouth. Bono's son Eli is trying, but I doubt he'll be anymore successful than Sting's kids were.

There is simply a limit to how much money you can make when people can simply obtain your music for free. No business can thrive when the customer can get the product for free. Streaming is not rebuilding the industry. Its simply preventing it from collapsing faster than it already is. That is is what the overall gross and revenue figures for the industry on an annual basis show. The best time to be an artist in the music industry was the late 1990 into the first years of the 00s.

Title: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 14, 2018, 08:12:45 PM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

I find all of this just to be rationalizing a substandard album that was not well received. AND lets by accurate - a large % of the sales were from ticket buyers. I LOVE U2, but would not have paid for this album, I only got 4 copies because I purchased tickets to see them a few times on the tour.

Well this is more of a sales thread than whether you like the music on the album. I love the album and think its great and find it disappointing that more dedicated fans have not purchased it or listened to it on whatever format that use for music.

Still though, selling 320,000 copies in the United States these days is not bad especially when you look at the top sellers released so far in 2018 above. Its just that the majority of people don't actually buy music anymore, they just stream it. But for U2 and those interested in U2, album purchases, both physical and digital is where you will find the vast majority of the business activity. There has been very little streaming activity for the album though especially when compared with other albums and artist, many of whom are much younger.

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Wons, with total respect, I would like to try to explain to you why I believe that is.

One obvious reason is that a CD came with your ticket. But beyond that...

I donít even own a CD player any more. The one in my car doesnít work. I didnít even request the free CDs that came with my tickets. I simply have no use for a physical CD and Iím not the collecting type. I see it as a symbolic, if inconsequential, waste of natural resources (for me personally). I donít see it as material to me or U2 as a show of financial support to throw them another $10 when i just gave them $400 and they offered to send me two free CDs AND they are (collectively) billionaires. When I see local bands, guess what? I still donít buy their CD. But I do put $20 in their tip jar. I essentially buy the CD but let them keep the plastic. If I really like the band I may buy the CD and rip it on my computer so I can upload it to my music locker and stream it.

The streaming model is not perfect for music yet. The streaming services are all losing money. Yet it is working for video, even though the cost of production for movie and TV is greater than that for music. Why is that? Its because Netflix has many more subscribers than the music services. In the old world before the internet, very few people spent $120/year on CDs. Members of this forum are not typical music consumers. Now, in the internet age, the industry has to get people who were buying 2 or 3 CDs a year to pay $10/month for streaming. But it is growing fast and investors think it will get there. Time will tell.

Another thing I think people misunderstand about streaming and artist compensation. On average, artists receive from .006 to .008 per stream. That is about equal to listening to your CD 200 times. (Assuming 12 songs on a CD and only .005.) If you listen to SOE more than 200 times you are paying U2 less than I am if I do the same over a streaming service. And yes, Iíve listened to all my U2 albums that much! Plus the old ones I bought on vinyl, then on CD, then some on CD again. Now I pay monthly to stream and 90% of what I stream I already bought on CD back when I was still using CDs. U2 is still getting paid by me every time I listen to New Years Day.

Now thatís not the same for new acts or recordins and Iím not saying streaming is great and CDs are bad. All I am saying is the model is changing and there are many ways to support artists. Frankly, U2 is doing just fine and I play by their rules. For smaller artists there are other options. Iíve contributed to PledgeMusic campaigns for struggling but well-known artists. That option didnít exist before the internet. Artists at least have a chance now to be heard without getting a record deal. Only a tiny fraction of artists ever got deals. Times are changing and the industry will figure it out. In the future CDs will be like vinyl...a little revenue stream from a very small number of people. I spend more on music today than I ever have. Its not going away, the revenue model is just changing and it will work out for Nashville just like it is for Hollywood once things fully transition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Were talking about ALBUM sales in this thread. Do your realize that means DIGITAL albums TOO. Probably about half of U2's album sales are in the DIGITAL format. So I don't understand why you keep going back to CD's, plastic, physical product etc. You can get the album in a digital format or physical format when you purchased the ticket or whenever you purchased the album if you purchased it. But not everyone requested the album when they purchased the ticket. You had to select the option.

Growing up most people I knew purchased multiple Compact Disk, Audio Cassettes, or Vinyl albums/records every month. By the end of high school or the start of college, most people I knew had collections of several hundred CD's, Tapes, records etc. None of us would have been able to build collections of music like that at just four albums a year. The peak of the music industry was in the year 2000-2001. In the year 2001, there were 100 albums that sold over 1 million copies during the 12 months of 2001. Last year in 2017, there were only 2 that did and that includes digital copies. So far this year there is one, but that will likely be it.

The recording industry in the United States is making less thatn 1/4 of what it used to make in the year 2000 once you adjust for inflation, even with all the streaming and individual track downloads etc. The industry has been destroyed as any industry would thats lost 75% of its business. The industry should be 25% to 50% larger than it was in the year 2000 do to population growth and the growing wealth of the country. But insttead, its only 1/4 the size it once was despite all the attempts to try and find a way to fix the problem of people getting their music for free essentially.

Finally with streaming, the ultimate comparison is someone putting a quarter into a Juke Box in 1985 and getting to hear one song. By comparison in 2018, that same 25 cents buys any music you want to listen to for the next 24 hours continuously. Thats terrible for artist and its why there are fewer bands today than there were in 1985. Most artist today are solo artist and they are making far less money than their peers in 1985. Artist today are scraping by to survive. Most people don't go the band route anymore because what little money is made is split 4 or 5 ways. Its part of why new rock music has declined because that type of music usually comes from a band format rather than a solo artist. Much easier to support the solo dance/pop, hip-hop, an rap artist. No band, no band equipment, just the electronics of the studio and pre-recorded tracks if there is a "live" performance.

The industry is dead compared to where it was back in the year 2000 or earlier and I have stacks of numbers, and statistics to prove it. Larry Mullen Jr. even advised his children against going into the industry like he did because the chances of making it today are so slim compared to decades ago. Sting had two of children go into the industry, but despite good talent and lots of help, neither of them were able to succeed, never making enough money to do anything more than put food in their mouth. Bono's son Eli is trying, but I doubt he'll be anymore successful than Sting's kids were.

There is simply a limit to how much money you can make when people can simply obtain your music for free. No business can thrive when the customer can get the product for free. Streaming is not rebuilding the industry. Its simply preventing it from collapsing faster than it already is. That is is what the overall gross and revenue figures for the industry on an annual basis show. The best time to be an artist in the music industry was the late 1990 into the first years of the 00s.

I feel like you never address my points and refute them diectly but I guess that is how we all are.

Nobody was ever putting a quarter in the jukebox every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks /year.

Also , there are some platitudes I hear repeated that donít hold up to scrutiny. Like the solo artist argument. How many artists do you think work on a solo artistís album? There is still a band involved and they have to be paid. So this idea that the ratio of solos to bands is evidence of something really doesnít make sense.

And there is more music being produced than ever. You like to exclude non-major label music. All of your numbers are based on the conventional industry but that is not where its at. Major labels and big studios are not necessary any more. Some of the best music out there is from indie artists and they are making enough to live the dream. Not everyone needs to be a millionaire. But weíre treading old ground here.

Some valid points on both sides I think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 15, 2018, 01:57:19 PM

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Really? I think U2ís ticket sales have been based almost entirely on the popularity of their back catalog for 15 years now.

Similarly, when I saw Paul McCartney a few years ago, it was because of his Beatles/early solo work than due to anything recent. Most people go to see the hits, and are less interested in the new stuff.

Aside from which, many folks donít buy music at ALL now. If anything, they have a Spotify account, or Apple Music, or something. The obsessives who actually buy music are very likely in the minority now. They can hear the music any number of legit/illegitimate ways, but seeing the band play is a bucket list item, or an experience theyíre willing to pay for.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 15, 2018, 05:21:19 PM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

I find all of this just to be rationalizing a substandard album that was not well received. AND lets by accurate - a large % of the sales were from ticket buyers. I LOVE U2, but would not have paid for this album, I only got 4 copies because I purchased tickets to see them a few times on the tour.

Well this is more of a sales thread than whether you like the music on the album. I love the album and think its great and find it disappointing that more dedicated fans have not purchased it or listened to it on whatever format that use for music.

Still though, selling 320,000 copies in the United States these days is not bad especially when you look at the top sellers released so far in 2018 above. Its just that the majority of people don't actually buy music anymore, they just stream it. But for U2 and those interested in U2, album purchases, both physical and digital is where you will find the vast majority of the business activity. There has been very little streaming activity for the album though especially when compared with other albums and artist, many of whom are much younger.

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Wons, with total respect, I would like to try to explain to you why I believe that is.

One obvious reason is that a CD came with your ticket. But beyond that...

I donít even own a CD player any more. The one in my car doesnít work. I didnít even request the free CDs that came with my tickets. I simply have no use for a physical CD and Iím not the collecting type. I see it as a symbolic, if inconsequential, waste of natural resources (for me personally). I donít see it as material to me or U2 as a show of financial support to throw them another $10 when i just gave them $400 and they offered to send me two free CDs AND they are (collectively) billionaires. When I see local bands, guess what? I still donít buy their CD. But I do put $20 in their tip jar. I essentially buy the CD but let them keep the plastic. If I really like the band I may buy the CD and rip it on my computer so I can upload it to my music locker and stream it.

The streaming model is not perfect for music yet. The streaming services are all losing money. Yet it is working for video, even though the cost of production for movie and TV is greater than that for music. Why is that? Its because Netflix has many more subscribers than the music services. In the old world before the internet, very few people spent $120/year on CDs. Members of this forum are not typical music consumers. Now, in the internet age, the industry has to get people who were buying 2 or 3 CDs a year to pay $10/month for streaming. But it is growing fast and investors think it will get there. Time will tell.

Another thing I think people misunderstand about streaming and artist compensation. On average, artists receive from .006 to .008 per stream. That is about equal to listening to your CD 200 times. (Assuming 12 songs on a CD and only .005.) If you listen to SOE more than 200 times you are paying U2 less than I am if I do the same over a streaming service. And yes, Iíve listened to all my U2 albums that much! Plus the old ones I bought on vinyl, then on CD, then some on CD again. Now I pay monthly to stream and 90% of what I stream I already bought on CD back when I was still using CDs. U2 is still getting paid by me every time I listen to New Years Day.

Now thatís not the same for new acts or recordins and Iím not saying streaming is great and CDs are bad. All I am saying is the model is changing and there are many ways to support artists. Frankly, U2 is doing just fine and I play by their rules. For smaller artists there are other options. Iíve contributed to PledgeMusic campaigns for struggling but well-known artists. That option didnít exist before the internet. Artists at least have a chance now to be heard without getting a record deal. Only a tiny fraction of artists ever got deals. Times are changing and the industry will figure it out. In the future CDs will be like vinyl...a little revenue stream from a very small number of people. I spend more on music today than I ever have. Its not going away, the revenue model is just changing and it will work out for Nashville just like it is for Hollywood once things fully transition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Were talking about ALBUM sales in this thread. Do your realize that means DIGITAL albums TOO. Probably about half of U2's album sales are in the DIGITAL format. So I don't understand why you keep going back to CD's, plastic, physical product etc. You can get the album in a digital format or physical format when you purchased the ticket or whenever you purchased the album if you purchased it. But not everyone requested the album when they purchased the ticket. You had to select the option.

Growing up most people I knew purchased multiple Compact Disk, Audio Cassettes, or Vinyl albums/records every month. By the end of high school or the start of college, most people I knew had collections of several hundred CD's, Tapes, records etc. None of us would have been able to build collections of music like that at just four albums a year. The peak of the music industry was in the year 2000-2001. In the year 2001, there were 100 albums that sold over 1 million copies during the 12 months of 2001. Last year in 2017, there were only 2 that did and that includes digital copies. So far this year there is one, but that will likely be it.

The recording industry in the United States is making less thatn 1/4 of what it used to make in the year 2000 once you adjust for inflation, even with all the streaming and individual track downloads etc. The industry has been destroyed as any industry would thats lost 75% of its business. The industry should be 25% to 50% larger than it was in the year 2000 do to population growth and the growing wealth of the country. But insttead, its only 1/4 the size it once was despite all the attempts to try and find a way to fix the problem of people getting their music for free essentially.

Finally with streaming, the ultimate comparison is someone putting a quarter into a Juke Box in 1985 and getting to hear one song. By comparison in 2018, that same 25 cents buys any music you want to listen to for the next 24 hours continuously. Thats terrible for artist and its why there are fewer bands today than there were in 1985. Most artist today are solo artist and they are making far less money than their peers in 1985. Artist today are scraping by to survive. Most people don't go the band route anymore because what little money is made is split 4 or 5 ways. Its part of why new rock music has declined because that type of music usually comes from a band format rather than a solo artist. Much easier to support the solo dance/pop, hip-hop, an rap artist. No band, no band equipment, just the electronics of the studio and pre-recorded tracks if there is a "live" performance.

The industry is dead compared to where it was back in the year 2000 or earlier and I have stacks of numbers, and statistics to prove it. Larry Mullen Jr. even advised his children against going into the industry like he did because the chances of making it today are so slim compared to decades ago. Sting had two of children go into the industry, but despite good talent and lots of help, neither of them were able to succeed, never making enough money to do anything more than put food in their mouth. Bono's son Eli is trying, but I doubt he'll be anymore successful than Sting's kids were.

There is simply a limit to how much money you can make when people can simply obtain your music for free. No business can thrive when the customer can get the product for free. Streaming is not rebuilding the industry. Its simply preventing it from collapsing faster than it already is. That is is what the overall gross and revenue figures for the industry on an annual basis show. The best time to be an artist in the music industry was the late 1990 into the first years of the 00s.

I feel like you never address my points and refute them diectly but I guess that is how we all are.

Nobody was ever putting a quarter in the jukebox every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks /year.

Also , there are some platitudes I hear repeated that donít hold up to scrutiny. Like the solo artist argument. How many artists do you think work on a solo artistís album? There is still a band involved and they have to be paid. So this idea that the ratio of solos to bands is evidence of something really doesnít make sense.

And there is more music being produced than ever. You like to exclude non-major label music. All of your numbers are based on the conventional industry but that is not where its at. Major labels and big studios are not necessary any more. Some of the best music out there is from indie artists and they are making enough to live the dream. Not everyone needs to be a millionaire. But weíre treading old ground here.

Some valid points on both sides I think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said someone was putting a quarter in a jukebox 24 hours a day, 7 days a week etc. But what you pay to spotify per day is the equivalent of a quarter which would only get you one song in 1985 on juke box with a limited collection. Pretty good for the artist in 1985. Not good at all in 2018.

For the solo artist, there probably is not a band involved. It may just be producer and the artist, with the producer using the studio to replace what a band would have done before. With the technology of the studio all it takes is a producer who knows how to use it and whatever the solo artist has to contribute. No band needed. That's how the majority of music is being made these days. Its a good thing to, because it cuts down the cost dramatically when less people are involved. 90% of the HOT 100(singles/songs chart) is all solo artist. The HOT 100 is up to date and includes streaming from spotify and youtube, so it is the cutting edge in determining what is popular out there and what is actually making money.

Indie artist or non-signed artist make up less than 10% of the gross made per year by the music industry.

In my opinion, rock music was far better in the 1980s and today its practically dead when it comes to new artist. I mean what artist would most closely resemble U2 of the 1980s in the 2010s in terms of quality of rock music as well as live performance? This past decade that is coming to a close has been the worst in terms of new artist in history.

Not everyone needs to be a millionaire, but everyone needs to eat. That's why a lot of artist work a regular day job and are no more than a part time artist and will likely stay that way and never receive any significant recognition, and are probably still unknown to you and me.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 15, 2018, 05:28:47 PM

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Really? I think U2ís ticket sales have been based almost entirely on the popularity of their back catalog for 15 years now.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If that were the case, U2 would still be booked in stadiums everywhere they went like on the 360 tour. The fact that their not and their struggling to sell some arenas and many of the stadium shows on the Joshua Tree tour 2017 did less business than similar stadium shows on the 360 tour, shows that the back catalog cannot sustain the bands maximum levels of concert business. They have to continue to produce some hits to do record setting stadium business like they did on 360. The fanbase is shrinking now and aging rapidly now that its been a while since they had a legit hit.

Quote

Similarly, when I saw Paul McCartney a few years ago, it was because of his Beatles/early solo work than due to anything recent. Most people go to see the hits, and are less interested in the new stuff.

Aside from which, many folks donít buy music at ALL now. If anything, they have a Spotify account, or Apple Music, or something. The obsessives who actually buy music are very likely in the minority now. They can hear the music any number of legit/illegitimate ways, but seeing the band play is a bucket list item, or an experience theyíre willing to pay for.

Well, when part of your back catalog is the Beatles, it gives you a boost than no other artist can get. Sure, U2 will always be able to do tours based on their back catalog, but they will not be able to do the record setting concert business they once did with just the back catalog.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 15, 2018, 09:44:13 PM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

I find all of this just to be rationalizing a substandard album that was not well received. AND lets by accurate - a large % of the sales were from ticket buyers. I LOVE U2, but would not have paid for this album, I only got 4 copies because I purchased tickets to see them a few times on the tour.

Well this is more of a sales thread than whether you like the music on the album. I love the album and think its great and find it disappointing that more dedicated fans have not purchased it or listened to it on whatever format that use for music.

Still though, selling 320,000 copies in the United States these days is not bad especially when you look at the top sellers released so far in 2018 above. Its just that the majority of people don't actually buy music anymore, they just stream it. But for U2 and those interested in U2, album purchases, both physical and digital is where you will find the vast majority of the business activity. There has been very little streaming activity for the album though especially when compared with other albums and artist, many of whom are much younger.

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Wons, with total respect, I would like to try to explain to you why I believe that is.

One obvious reason is that a CD came with your ticket. But beyond that...

I donít even own a CD player any more. The one in my car doesnít work. I didnít even request the free CDs that came with my tickets. I simply have no use for a physical CD and Iím not the collecting type. I see it as a symbolic, if inconsequential, waste of natural resources (for me personally). I donít see it as material to me or U2 as a show of financial support to throw them another $10 when i just gave them $400 and they offered to send me two free CDs AND they are (collectively) billionaires. When I see local bands, guess what? I still donít buy their CD. But I do put $20 in their tip jar. I essentially buy the CD but let them keep the plastic. If I really like the band I may buy the CD and rip it on my computer so I can upload it to my music locker and stream it.

The streaming model is not perfect for music yet. The streaming services are all losing money. Yet it is working for video, even though the cost of production for movie and TV is greater than that for music. Why is that? Its because Netflix has many more subscribers than the music services. In the old world before the internet, very few people spent $120/year on CDs. Members of this forum are not typical music consumers. Now, in the internet age, the industry has to get people who were buying 2 or 3 CDs a year to pay $10/month for streaming. But it is growing fast and investors think it will get there. Time will tell.

Another thing I think people misunderstand about streaming and artist compensation. On average, artists receive from .006 to .008 per stream. That is about equal to listening to your CD 200 times. (Assuming 12 songs on a CD and only .005.) If you listen to SOE more than 200 times you are paying U2 less than I am if I do the same over a streaming service. And yes, Iíve listened to all my U2 albums that much! Plus the old ones I bought on vinyl, then on CD, then some on CD again. Now I pay monthly to stream and 90% of what I stream I already bought on CD back when I was still using CDs. U2 is still getting paid by me every time I listen to New Years Day.

Now thatís not the same for new acts or recordins and Iím not saying streaming is great and CDs are bad. All I am saying is the model is changing and there are many ways to support artists. Frankly, U2 is doing just fine and I play by their rules. For smaller artists there are other options. Iíve contributed to PledgeMusic campaigns for struggling but well-known artists. That option didnít exist before the internet. Artists at least have a chance now to be heard without getting a record deal. Only a tiny fraction of artists ever got deals. Times are changing and the industry will figure it out. In the future CDs will be like vinyl...a little revenue stream from a very small number of people. I spend more on music today than I ever have. Its not going away, the revenue model is just changing and it will work out for Nashville just like it is for Hollywood once things fully transition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Were talking about ALBUM sales in this thread. Do your realize that means DIGITAL albums TOO. Probably about half of U2's album sales are in the DIGITAL format. So I don't understand why you keep going back to CD's, plastic, physical product etc. You can get the album in a digital format or physical format when you purchased the ticket or whenever you purchased the album if you purchased it. But not everyone requested the album when they purchased the ticket. You had to select the option.

Growing up most people I knew purchased multiple Compact Disk, Audio Cassettes, or Vinyl albums/records every month. By the end of high school or the start of college, most people I knew had collections of several hundred CD's, Tapes, records etc. None of us would have been able to build collections of music like that at just four albums a year. The peak of the music industry was in the year 2000-2001. In the year 2001, there were 100 albums that sold over 1 million copies during the 12 months of 2001. Last year in 2017, there were only 2 that did and that includes digital copies. So far this year there is one, but that will likely be it.

The recording industry in the United States is making less thatn 1/4 of what it used to make in the year 2000 once you adjust for inflation, even with all the streaming and individual track downloads etc. The industry has been destroyed as any industry would thats lost 75% of its business. The industry should be 25% to 50% larger than it was in the year 2000 do to population growth and the growing wealth of the country. But insttead, its only 1/4 the size it once was despite all the attempts to try and find a way to fix the problem of people getting their music for free essentially.

Finally with streaming, the ultimate comparison is someone putting a quarter into a Juke Box in 1985 and getting to hear one song. By comparison in 2018, that same 25 cents buys any music you want to listen to for the next 24 hours continuously. Thats terrible for artist and its why there are fewer bands today than there were in 1985. Most artist today are solo artist and they are making far less money than their peers in 1985. Artist today are scraping by to survive. Most people don't go the band route anymore because what little money is made is split 4 or 5 ways. Its part of why new rock music has declined because that type of music usually comes from a band format rather than a solo artist. Much easier to support the solo dance/pop, hip-hop, an rap artist. No band, no band equipment, just the electronics of the studio and pre-recorded tracks if there is a "live" performance.

The industry is dead compared to where it was back in the year 2000 or earlier and I have stacks of numbers, and statistics to prove it. Larry Mullen Jr. even advised his children against going into the industry like he did because the chances of making it today are so slim compared to decades ago. Sting had two of children go into the industry, but despite good talent and lots of help, neither of them were able to succeed, never making enough money to do anything more than put food in their mouth. Bono's son Eli is trying, but I doubt he'll be anymore successful than Sting's kids were.

There is simply a limit to how much money you can make when people can simply obtain your music for free. No business can thrive when the customer can get the product for free. Streaming is not rebuilding the industry. Its simply preventing it from collapsing faster than it already is. That is is what the overall gross and revenue figures for the industry on an annual basis show. The best time to be an artist in the music industry was the late 1990 into the first years of the 00s.

I feel like you never address my points and refute them diectly but I guess that is how we all are.

Nobody was ever putting a quarter in the jukebox every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks /year.

Also , there are some platitudes I hear repeated that donít hold up to scrutiny. Like the solo artist argument. How many artists do you think work on a solo artistís album? There is still a band involved and they have to be paid. So this idea that the ratio of solos to bands is evidence of something really doesnít make sense.

And there is more music being produced than ever. You like to exclude non-major label music. All of your numbers are based on the conventional industry but that is not where its at. Major labels and big studios are not necessary any more. Some of the best music out there is from indie artists and they are making enough to live the dream. Not everyone needs to be a millionaire. But weíre treading old ground here.

Some valid points on both sides I think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said someone was putting a quarter in a jukebox 24 hours a day, 7 days a week etc. But what you pay to spotify per day is the equivalent of a quarter which would only get you one song in 1985 on juke box with a limited collection. Pretty good for the artist in 1985. Not good at all in 2018.

For the solo artist, there probably is not a band involved. It may just be producer and the artist, with the producer using the studio to replace what a band would have done before. With the technology of the studio all it takes is a producer who knows how to use it and whatever the solo artist has to contribute. No band needed. That's how the majority of music is being made these days. Its a good thing to, because it cuts down the cost dramatically when less people are involved. 90% of the HOT 100(singles/songs chart) is all solo artist. The HOT 100 is up to date and includes streaming from spotify and youtube, so it is the cutting edge in determining what is popular out there and what is actually making money.

Indie artist or non-signed artist make up less than 10% of the gross made per year by the music industry.

In my opinion, rock music was far better in the 1980s and today its practically dead when it comes to new artist. I mean what artist would most closely resemble U2 of the 1980s in the 2010s in terms of quality of rock music as well as live performance? This past decade that is coming to a close has been the worst in terms of new artist in history.

Not everyone needs to be a millionaire, but everyone needs to eat. That's why a lot of artist work a regular day job and are no more than a part time artist and will likely stay that way and never receive any significant recognition, and are probably still unknown to you and me.

I know you didnít say they were plugging the juke box continuously but that would need to be the case for your comparison to be valid. That is a false equivalence.

No band needed? You seriously think major label records are made without session players? Do you even read liner notes? Taylor Swiftís last record had over 25 musicians credited.

Check out Mutemath for just one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 16, 2018, 06:34:22 AM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

I find all of this just to be rationalizing a substandard album that was not well received. AND lets by accurate - a large % of the sales were from ticket buyers. I LOVE U2, but would not have paid for this album, I only got 4 copies because I purchased tickets to see them a few times on the tour.

Well this is more of a sales thread than whether you like the music on the album. I love the album and think its great and find it disappointing that more dedicated fans have not purchased it or listened to it on whatever format that use for music.

Still though, selling 320,000 copies in the United States these days is not bad especially when you look at the top sellers released so far in 2018 above. Its just that the majority of people don't actually buy music anymore, they just stream it. But for U2 and those interested in U2, album purchases, both physical and digital is where you will find the vast majority of the business activity. There has been very little streaming activity for the album though especially when compared with other albums and artist, many of whom are much younger.

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Wons, with total respect, I would like to try to explain to you why I believe that is.

One obvious reason is that a CD came with your ticket. But beyond that...

I donít even own a CD player any more. The one in my car doesnít work. I didnít even request the free CDs that came with my tickets. I simply have no use for a physical CD and Iím not the collecting type. I see it as a symbolic, if inconsequential, waste of natural resources (for me personally). I donít see it as material to me or U2 as a show of financial support to throw them another $10 when i just gave them $400 and they offered to send me two free CDs AND they are (collectively) billionaires. When I see local bands, guess what? I still donít buy their CD. But I do put $20 in their tip jar. I essentially buy the CD but let them keep the plastic. If I really like the band I may buy the CD and rip it on my computer so I can upload it to my music locker and stream it.

The streaming model is not perfect for music yet. The streaming services are all losing money. Yet it is working for video, even though the cost of production for movie and TV is greater than that for music. Why is that? Its because Netflix has many more subscribers than the music services. In the old world before the internet, very few people spent $120/year on CDs. Members of this forum are not typical music consumers. Now, in the internet age, the industry has to get people who were buying 2 or 3 CDs a year to pay $10/month for streaming. But it is growing fast and investors think it will get there. Time will tell.

Another thing I think people misunderstand about streaming and artist compensation. On average, artists receive from .006 to .008 per stream. That is about equal to listening to your CD 200 times. (Assuming 12 songs on a CD and only .005.) If you listen to SOE more than 200 times you are paying U2 less than I am if I do the same over a streaming service. And yes, Iíve listened to all my U2 albums that much! Plus the old ones I bought on vinyl, then on CD, then some on CD again. Now I pay monthly to stream and 90% of what I stream I already bought on CD back when I was still using CDs. U2 is still getting paid by me every time I listen to New Years Day.

Now thatís not the same for new acts or recordins and Iím not saying streaming is great and CDs are bad. All I am saying is the model is changing and there are many ways to support artists. Frankly, U2 is doing just fine and I play by their rules. For smaller artists there are other options. Iíve contributed to PledgeMusic campaigns for struggling but well-known artists. That option didnít exist before the internet. Artists at least have a chance now to be heard without getting a record deal. Only a tiny fraction of artists ever got deals. Times are changing and the industry will figure it out. In the future CDs will be like vinyl...a little revenue stream from a very small number of people. I spend more on music today than I ever have. Its not going away, the revenue model is just changing and it will work out for Nashville just like it is for Hollywood once things fully transition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Were talking about ALBUM sales in this thread. Do your realize that means DIGITAL albums TOO. Probably about half of U2's album sales are in the DIGITAL format. So I don't understand why you keep going back to CD's, plastic, physical product etc. You can get the album in a digital format or physical format when you purchased the ticket or whenever you purchased the album if you purchased it. But not everyone requested the album when they purchased the ticket. You had to select the option.

Growing up most people I knew purchased multiple Compact Disk, Audio Cassettes, or Vinyl albums/records every month. By the end of high school or the start of college, most people I knew had collections of several hundred CD's, Tapes, records etc. None of us would have been able to build collections of music like that at just four albums a year. The peak of the music industry was in the year 2000-2001. In the year 2001, there were 100 albums that sold over 1 million copies during the 12 months of 2001. Last year in 2017, there were only 2 that did and that includes digital copies. So far this year there is one, but that will likely be it.

The recording industry in the United States is making less thatn 1/4 of what it used to make in the year 2000 once you adjust for inflation, even with all the streaming and individual track downloads etc. The industry has been destroyed as any industry would thats lost 75% of its business. The industry should be 25% to 50% larger than it was in the year 2000 do to population growth and the growing wealth of the country. But insttead, its only 1/4 the size it once was despite all the attempts to try and find a way to fix the problem of people getting their music for free essentially.

Finally with streaming, the ultimate comparison is someone putting a quarter into a Juke Box in 1985 and getting to hear one song. By comparison in 2018, that same 25 cents buys any music you want to listen to for the next 24 hours continuously. Thats terrible for artist and its why there are fewer bands today than there were in 1985. Most artist today are solo artist and they are making far less money than their peers in 1985. Artist today are scraping by to survive. Most people don't go the band route anymore because what little money is made is split 4 or 5 ways. Its part of why new rock music has declined because that type of music usually comes from a band format rather than a solo artist. Much easier to support the solo dance/pop, hip-hop, an rap artist. No band, no band equipment, just the electronics of the studio and pre-recorded tracks if there is a "live" performance.

The industry is dead compared to where it was back in the year 2000 or earlier and I have stacks of numbers, and statistics to prove it. Larry Mullen Jr. even advised his children against going into the industry like he did because the chances of making it today are so slim compared to decades ago. Sting had two of children go into the industry, but despite good talent and lots of help, neither of them were able to succeed, never making enough money to do anything more than put food in their mouth. Bono's son Eli is trying, but I doubt he'll be anymore successful than Sting's kids were.

There is simply a limit to how much money you can make when people can simply obtain your music for free. No business can thrive when the customer can get the product for free. Streaming is not rebuilding the industry. Its simply preventing it from collapsing faster than it already is. That is is what the overall gross and revenue figures for the industry on an annual basis show. The best time to be an artist in the music industry was the late 1990 into the first years of the 00s.

I feel like you never address my points and refute them diectly but I guess that is how we all are.

Nobody was ever putting a quarter in the jukebox every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks /year.

Also , there are some platitudes I hear repeated that donít hold up to scrutiny. Like the solo artist argument. How many artists do you think work on a solo artistís album? There is still a band involved and they have to be paid. So this idea that the ratio of solos to bands is evidence of something really doesnít make sense.

And there is more music being produced than ever. You like to exclude non-major label music. All of your numbers are based on the conventional industry but that is not where its at. Major labels and big studios are not necessary any more. Some of the best music out there is from indie artists and they are making enough to live the dream. Not everyone needs to be a millionaire. But weíre treading old ground here.

Some valid points on both sides I think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said someone was putting a quarter in a jukebox 24 hours a day, 7 days a week etc. But what you pay to spotify per day is the equivalent of a quarter which would only get you one song in 1985 on juke box with a limited collection. Pretty good for the artist in 1985. Not good at all in 2018.

For the solo artist, there probably is not a band involved. It may just be producer and the artist, with the producer using the studio to replace what a band would have done before. With the technology of the studio all it takes is a producer who knows how to use it and whatever the solo artist has to contribute. No band needed. That's how the majority of music is being made these days. Its a good thing to, because it cuts down the cost dramatically when less people are involved. 90% of the HOT 100(singles/songs chart) is all solo artist. The HOT 100 is up to date and includes streaming from spotify and youtube, so it is the cutting edge in determining what is popular out there and what is actually making money.

Indie artist or non-signed artist make up less than 10% of the gross made per year by the music industry.

In my opinion, rock music was far better in the 1980s and today its practically dead when it comes to new artist. I mean what artist would most closely resemble U2 of the 1980s in the 2010s in terms of quality of rock music as well as live performance? This past decade that is coming to a close has been the worst in terms of new artist in history.

Not everyone needs to be a millionaire, but everyone needs to eat. That's why a lot of artist work a regular day job and are no more than a part time artist and will likely stay that way and never receive any significant recognition, and are probably still unknown to you and me.

I know you didnít say they were plugging the juke box continuously but that would need to be the case for your comparison to be valid. That is a false equivalence.

No band needed? You seriously think major label records are made without session players? Do you even read liner notes? Taylor Swiftís last record had over 25 musicians credited.

Check out Mutemath for just one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When the record label does use musicians for its artist, its often the same session musicians. Their not tied to any particular artist and can be used for multiple artist. So that is not the same thing as paying a band. Again, its more difficult to support a band of five people than it is to support a solo artist. That's why the number of bands has dropped over the past 20 years and there are more solo artist. Its killing the Rock music genre with number and quality of new artist coming out dropping.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 16, 2018, 06:52:26 AM

On the Billboard 200, the chart that tracks the top albums by considering "streaming of songs from the album" and converting that into SEA equivalent album units as well individual track downloads and converting that into TEA equivalent album units, then combining that with actual album sales, both physical and digital, Drake's new album Scorpion is #1.

Drakes "Scorpion" sold 335,000 equivalent albums this week.

Here is how Drake's Scorpion breaks down those 335,000 equivalent albums between Streaming(SEA), individual track downloads(TEA), and regular album sales.

Less than 10% of his sales for the album come from actual album sales whether they be digital or physical. The 288,000 SEA equivalent album units was = to 391 million on demand audio streams.

The album that placed at #3 on the Billboard 200 this week is STREAMING ONLY. Not a single album was sold whether it be physical or digital. No individual tracks were downloaded. All of its units came from streaming. The artist is FUTURE and the album is Beastmode 2. It did 57,000 equivalent units = to 75 million on demand audio streams.

So you can now top the official album chart, the Billboard 200, without selling a single digital or physical album. The public does not have to purchase anything from the artist in fact. They can just stream a song from the album and if enough people stream songs from the album, the album can be #1.

U2 is the polar opposite of Drake with 96% of its units coming from actual album sales, physical or digital. That is why it is so important to track U2's album actual album sales because that is where their new music is doing all the business. Streaming and individual track downloads account for only a TINY portion of U2's total equivalent album sales for Songs Of Experience.

Songs Of Experience has done about 340,000 in equivalent album sales, with 319,000 coming from actual album sales, digital or physical. So total streaming and individual track downloads for Songs Of Experience is only = to about 21,000 units in album sales. It takes 10 track downloads to equal 1 album sale, and 1,500 streams to equal 1 album sale.

Title: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 16, 2018, 08:51:23 AM

At this point, I think the album will make the 350,000 copies sold mark in the United States, which is the combined total of digital and physical albums sold. That could change of course if a single takes off, the band tour into 2019, or the album is nominated for grammy awards and wins several of them. 350,000 in sales for the United States is only 25% of what POP did back in 1997. Since Pop was really only purchased by the "die-hards", one wonders why so much of the hardcore fanbase ignored this album completely. The streaming totals and individual track down loads for the album and its songs are small, probably only 50,000 in equivalent album sales. Back during POP/Popmart, the numbers suggested that everyone who purchased a ticket for the show also had purchased the album. The numbers for Songs Of Experience suggest that less than half of people buying tickets to this tour purchased the album in some format or even listened to it. Again, this is just for the United States. The situation in other countries could be very different.

The implication here is that while normally you would think the battle for U2, on the business side of things, would be how to get casual fans and the general public to buy the album or listen to it, the fight is now centered, or should be, on getting their most dedicated fans interested in the new material.

Well you know my take on it is: the album is poor, hence the low sales-as is the tour , hence the lack of any noticeable pick up in sales as the album is toured. But what do you think? One thing that crossed my mind was by way of the perceived Trump-bashing at Iheart etc, they have alienated a sizeable percentage of their US audience? Any thoughts?

Alternatively, i stumbled across a thread with no replies on the forum somewhere-- ''do you think YTBTAM was a radio success". Personally i think it's up there with the worst they've ever committed to tape so I will say 'obviously ,no, it was a failure"- because it's rotten lol ( IMHO!!!!) . I don't mind GOOYOW at all--it's catchy and more radio friendly. So perhaps they screwed up with the marketing.

How to get their most dedicated fans interested in their new material is simple-- make better albums with better songs and better production ( one producer preferably).

I think I should state again that, yes, these album sales are low compared to an album like POP in 1997 which was consider a low seller at the time by U2's standards. But the 320,000 copies Songs Of Experience has sold so far in the United States is actually pretty good relative to other albums released in December of 2017 and especially albums released so far in 2018.

For example, when looking at albums released in 2018, the following are the 10 best sellers as of today:

Had U2 released Songs Of Experience in January of 2018, it would be at about #3 or #4 on this list of the best selling releases of 2018 as of July 2018.

But, there are other factors to look at here. The fact is, most of the public does not purchase albums anymore, whether they be digital or physical. Over 60% of the public is streaming all their music now whether its single individual songs or whole albums. People who by individual digital tracks make up another 20%, and finally the people who still purchase albums(digital or physical) make up the remaining 20%.

U2 has very poor streaming numbers and individual digital track purchase numbers. Justin Timberlake does better. For example his first single from his new album, a song called Filthy has 64 million views on youtube, while is song with Chris Stapleton called "Say Something" has 232 million views on youtube. Compare that to U2's "You're The Best Thing about Me" which only has 12 million views after nearly a year after it was released to youtube.

So while Songs Of Experience is close in sales to Justin Timberlakes new album, its really when you look at streaming figures for songs from each album where you start to see the real difference.

So there are some good things about U2's numbers for Songs Of Experience, but also some other things that are not so good about it. What U2 needs is better streaming and individual digital track downloads to go along with their album sales numbers then they would be up there with the likes of Justin Timberlake and others.

What is happening also may be a generational issue. 80% of U2's fans that are still following the band are between the ages of 41 and 55. Not old in reality, but old by music industry standards. The older crowd still buys albums(digital or Physical). The younger crowd streams all their music now.

So Justin Timberlake has the best selling album released in 2018 thanks largely to his "older fans" it would seem. Most of the fan activity for his new album though comes from streaming which is where all his younger fans are listening to his new music.

The album sales for Songs Of Experience are still very important though because that is how most of the fans of new music are obtaining it. But when looking at overall popularity compared to other artist new music, the numbers do have to be put into a much broader context when a comparison is made. A context that also looks at streaming, individual track downloads as well as album sales(digital and physical).

I find all of this just to be rationalizing a substandard album that was not well received. AND lets by accurate - a large % of the sales were from ticket buyers. I LOVE U2, but would not have paid for this album, I only got 4 copies because I purchased tickets to see them a few times on the tour.

Well this is more of a sales thread than whether you like the music on the album. I love the album and think its great and find it disappointing that more dedicated fans have not purchased it or listened to it on whatever format that use for music.

Still though, selling 320,000 copies in the United States these days is not bad especially when you look at the top sellers released so far in 2018 above. Its just that the majority of people don't actually buy music anymore, they just stream it. But for U2 and those interested in U2, album purchases, both physical and digital is where you will find the vast majority of the business activity. There has been very little streaming activity for the album though especially when compared with other albums and artist, many of whom are much younger.

I do find it a bit odd to be paying hundreds of dollars for tickets to a tour based around this album, but being unwilling to pay 10$ or 15$ dollars for the album itself.

Wons, with total respect, I would like to try to explain to you why I believe that is.

One obvious reason is that a CD came with your ticket. But beyond that...

I donít even own a CD player any more. The one in my car doesnít work. I didnít even request the free CDs that came with my tickets. I simply have no use for a physical CD and Iím not the collecting type. I see it as a symbolic, if inconsequential, waste of natural resources (for me personally). I donít see it as material to me or U2 as a show of financial support to throw them another $10 when i just gave them $400 and they offered to send me two free CDs AND they are (collectively) billionaires. When I see local bands, guess what? I still donít buy their CD. But I do put $20 in their tip jar. I essentially buy the CD but let them keep the plastic. If I really like the band I may buy the CD and rip it on my computer so I can upload it to my music locker and stream it.

The streaming model is not perfect for music yet. The streaming services are all losing money. Yet it is working for video, even though the cost of production for movie and TV is greater than that for music. Why is that? Its because Netflix has many more subscribers than the music services. In the old world before the internet, very few people spent $120/year on CDs. Members of this forum are not typical music consumers. Now, in the internet age, the industry has to get people who were buying 2 or 3 CDs a year to pay $10/month for streaming. But it is growing fast and investors think it will get there. Time will tell.

Another thing I think people misunderstand about streaming and artist compensation. On average, artists receive from .006 to .008 per stream. That is about equal to listening to your CD 200 times. (Assuming 12 songs on a CD and only .005.) If you listen to SOE more than 200 times you are paying U2 less than I am if I do the same over a streaming service. And yes, Iíve listened to all my U2 albums that much! Plus the old ones I bought on vinyl, then on CD, then some on CD again. Now I pay monthly to stream and 90% of what I stream I already bought on CD back when I was still using CDs. U2 is still getting paid by me every time I listen to New Years Day.

Now thatís not the same for new acts or recordins and Iím not saying streaming is great and CDs are bad. All I am saying is the model is changing and there are many ways to support artists. Frankly, U2 is doing just fine and I play by their rules. For smaller artists there are other options. Iíve contributed to PledgeMusic campaigns for struggling but well-known artists. That option didnít exist before the internet. Artists at least have a chance now to be heard without getting a record deal. Only a tiny fraction of artists ever got deals. Times are changing and the industry will figure it out. In the future CDs will be like vinyl...a little revenue stream from a very small number of people. I spend more on music today than I ever have. Its not going away, the revenue model is just changing and it will work out for Nashville just like it is for Hollywood once things fully transition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Were talking about ALBUM sales in this thread. Do your realize that means DIGITAL albums TOO. Probably about half of U2's album sales are in the DIGITAL format. So I don't understand why you keep going back to CD's, plastic, physical product etc. You can get the album in a digital format or physical format when you purchased the ticket or whenever you purchased the album if you purchased it. But not everyone requested the album when they purchased the ticket. You had to select the option.

Growing up most people I knew purchased multiple Compact Disk, Audio Cassettes, or Vinyl albums/records every month. By the end of high school or the start of college, most people I knew had collections of several hundred CD's, Tapes, records etc. None of us would have been able to build collections of music like that at just four albums a year. The peak of the music industry was in the year 2000-2001. In the year 2001, there were 100 albums that sold over 1 million copies during the 12 months of 2001. Last year in 2017, there were only 2 that did and that includes digital copies. So far this year there is one, but that will likely be it.

The recording industry in the United States is making less thatn 1/4 of what it used to make in the year 2000 once you adjust for inflation, even with all the streaming and individual track downloads etc. The industry has been destroyed as any industry would thats lost 75% of its business. The industry should be 25% to 50% larger than it was in the year 2000 do to population growth and the growing wealth of the country. But insttead, its only 1/4 the size it once was despite all the attempts to try and find a way to fix the problem of people getting their music for free essentially.

Finally with streaming, the ultimate comparison is someone putting a quarter into a Juke Box in 1985 and getting to hear one song. By comparison in 2018, that same 25 cents buys any music you want to listen to for the next 24 hours continuously. Thats terrible for artist and its why there are fewer bands today than there were in 1985. Most artist today are solo artist and they are making far less money than their peers in 1985. Artist today are scraping by to survive. Most people don't go the band route anymore because what little money is made is split 4 or 5 ways. Its part of why new rock music has declined because that type of music usually comes from a band format rather than a solo artist. Much easier to support the solo dance/pop, hip-hop, an rap artist. No band, no band equipment, just the electronics of the studio and pre-recorded tracks if there is a "live" performance.

The industry is dead compared to where it was back in the year 2000 or earlier and I have stacks of numbers, and statistics to prove it. Larry Mullen Jr. even advised his children against going into the industry like he did because the chances of making it today are so slim compared to decades ago. Sting had two of children go into the industry, but despite good talent and lots of help, neither of them were able to succeed, never making enough money to do anything more than put food in their mouth. Bono's son Eli is trying, but I doubt he'll be anymore successful than Sting's kids were.

There is simply a limit to how much money you can make when people can simply obtain your music for free. No business can thrive when the customer can get the product for free. Streaming is not rebuilding the industry. Its simply preventing it from collapsing faster than it already is. That is is what the overall gross and revenue figures for the industry on an annual basis show. The best time to be an artist in the music industry was the late 1990 into the first years of the 00s.

I feel like you never address my points and refute them diectly but I guess that is how we all are.

Nobody was ever putting a quarter in the jukebox every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days/week, 52 weeks /year.

Also , there are some platitudes I hear repeated that donít hold up to scrutiny. Like the solo artist argument. How many artists do you think work on a solo artistís album? There is still a band involved and they have to be paid. So this idea that the ratio of solos to bands is evidence of something really doesnít make sense.

And there is more music being produced than ever. You like to exclude non-major label music. All of your numbers are based on the conventional industry but that is not where its at. Major labels and big studios are not necessary any more. Some of the best music out there is from indie artists and they are making enough to live the dream. Not everyone needs to be a millionaire. But weíre treading old ground here.

Some valid points on both sides I think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said someone was putting a quarter in a jukebox 24 hours a day, 7 days a week etc. But what you pay to spotify per day is the equivalent of a quarter which would only get you one song in 1985 on juke box with a limited collection. Pretty good for the artist in 1985. Not good at all in 2018.

For the solo artist, there probably is not a band involved. It may just be producer and the artist, with the producer using the studio to replace what a band would have done before. With the technology of the studio all it takes is a producer who knows how to use it and whatever the solo artist has to contribute. No band needed. That's how the majority of music is being made these days. Its a good thing to, because it cuts down the cost dramatically when less people are involved. 90% of the HOT 100(singles/songs chart) is all solo artist. The HOT 100 is up to date and includes streaming from spotify and youtube, so it is the cutting edge in determining what is popular out there and what is actually making money.

Indie artist or non-signed artist make up less than 10% of the gross made per year by the music industry.

In my opinion, rock music was far better in the 1980s and today its practically dead when it comes to new artist. I mean what artist would most closely resemble U2 of the 1980s in the 2010s in terms of quality of rock music as well as live performance? This past decade that is coming to a close has been the worst in terms of new artist in history.

Not everyone needs to be a millionaire, but everyone needs to eat. That's why a lot of artist work a regular day job and are no more than a part time artist and will likely stay that way and never receive any significant recognition, and are probably still unknown to you and me.

I know you didnít say they were plugging the juke box continuously but that would need to be the case for your comparison to be valid. That is a false equivalence.

No band needed? You seriously think major label records are made without session players? Do you even read liner notes? Taylor Swiftís last record had over 25 musicians credited.

Check out Mutemath for just one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When the record label does use musicians for its artist, its often the same session musicians. Their not tied to any particular artist and can be used for multiple artist. So that is not the same thing as paying a band. Again, its more difficult to support a band of five people than it is to support a solo artist. That's why the number of bands has dropped over the past 20 years and there are more solo artist. Its killing the Rock music genre with number and quality of new artist coming out dropping.

Rock is ebbing because its not popular right now. The charts have always been dominated by solo acts outside of the rock genre. If you look back to the sixties, rock has waxed and waned throughout. Today, its waning has alot to do with a trend started by American Idol and The Voice which include only solo artists. Even acts like David Cook, who was in a band but entered American Idol as a solo artist and is clearly a Rock artist is marketed as a solo act because that is how he is known from the show. Many solo artists have a dedicated band they record with but they still show up in the stats as a solo artist. Bands were big in the 70s and 80s as a pop identity. Now not so much. Not everything is a victim of streaming. Youíve oversimplified things in your mind. Lots of factors affect trends.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 16, 2018, 08:45:06 PM

Just to add a new record in U.S. chart history, Drake's new album SCORPION is at #1 on the U.S. album chart with the lowest sales EVER for a #1 album in history, 29,254 copies sold, both digital and physical formats combined! The #10 album this past week may have sold as little as 6,000 copies, if Hits Dailydoubles estimates prove correct.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 17, 2018, 10:48:16 AM

No soundscan data this week, but Songs Of Experience has completely dropped off the smaller rock album sales chart an alternative albums sales chart. Since the #50 and #25 positions on those charts are never in the top 200 selling albums of soundscan chart, its pretty clear that the album is now gone. A very FAST exit considering that the album was at #62 just 3 weeks ago. Songs Of Experience did about 319,000 copies in sales which combines physical and digital copies sold.

Without a new single rising up the charts, a return to tour the United States in 2019, some grammy nominations or grammy wins, it is unlikely that the Songs Of Experience album will resurface on the charts. There is the chance that there may be some more album/ticket bundled sales that have not been released yet that could temporarily push it back in the charts, but at this point I doubt it.

I'll keep checking each week, but will only update the thread if Songs Of Experience reappears on the charts at some point. Its about 7 and a half months since the album was released December 1, 2017.

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 17, 2018, 12:30:57 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

Dwindling indeed. But donít confuse the change in how people consume music with a lack of interest in it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As Billboard has shown, most U2 fans, about 90% of those who show interest by either puchasing or streaming the new music, do so by purchasing the new album in either a digital or physical format. Less than 10% of U2 fans who have shown interest in Songs Of Experience are either streaming it or downloading individual tracks from it.

So album sales are still a very important barameter for U2 since 90% of the interest in the new album is reflected in digital and album sales, with streaming and digital downloads of individual tracks making up the remaining 10%.

A U2 fan that just streams the new music is in the minority among those listening to the Songs Of Experience. The overwhelming majority of U2 fans that have listened to Songs Of Experience purchased the album in a digital or physical format.

Title: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 17, 2018, 12:31:49 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 17, 2018, 12:52:13 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 17, 2018, 02:02:36 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 17, 2018, 02:14:57 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 17, 2018, 03:51:52 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 17, 2018, 10:50:41 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For most of U2's career, the new album and whether it was successful or not played the primary factor in whether the tour was a success. U2 had their first downturn with the POPMART tour and it was because the POP album was poorly received. The next three albums and did very well though and so did their tours. This is the first tour U2 has ever done where the number of fans who purchased or listened to the album was less than the number of fans that purchased a ticket for the tour. For POP and POPMART it was one for one. But typically, album sales have always been greater than ticket sales.

So unfortunately it appears that the legacy factor is for the first time dominating things over the new album which is not good news for the band. It shows that overall interest in the band is dwindling. While some "legacy acts" do record business, most get stuck playing the local farm show or town festival. Its not the ideal place to be. The ideal is having new music that brings in new fans, old fans, and everything in between + the legacy factor. That is when the business incredible or record breaking like on the Vertigo Tour and the 360 tour.

Still, selling 319,000 copies of an album in 2017/2018 is not bad at all. Justin Timberlake's latest has only done a little over 400,000. The sad fact is most people are not even listening to albums in any format anymore. Their just listening to individual songs, a couple from this artist, a couple from that artist. Technology has killed the album regardless of the format it is in. That's not good for artist in the future, because individual songs are not a very good basis for building fandom and getting fans to spend $100 dollars a ticket or more to come to a show. As the public becomes less invested in any particular artist, they become less likely to support concert performances. Why go see a band or artist when you only like or listen to two of their songs? The public is starting to place LESS VALUE on music in general, and even less value on the artist that produce the music.

But U2 are an album band! They always have been. That means they produce albums that from first track to last, are fantastic with no filler. It takes incredible talent to be able to do that. People use to appreciate that, but not anymore it seems.

Still, I hope U2 do not lose heart and realize that they still have a very dedicated following that is interested in their new music and generally prefer the album/tour cycle that is based around new music which is what the band has always been about.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 17, 2018, 10:58:19 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For most of U2's career, the new album and whether it was successful or not played the primary factor in whether the tour was a success. U2 had their first downturn with the POPMART tour and it was because the POP album was poorly received. The next three albums and did very well though and so did their tours. This is the first tour U2 has ever done where the number of fans who purchased or listened to the album was less than the number of fans that purchased a ticket for the tour. For POP and POPMART it was one for one. But typically, album sales have always been greater than ticket sales.

So unfortunately it appears that the legacy factor is for the first time dominating things over the new album which is not good news for the band. It shows that overall interest in the band is dwindling. While some "legacy acts" do record business, most get stuck playing the local farm show or town festival. Its not the ideal place to be. The ideal is having new music that brings in new fans, old fans, and everything in between + the legacy factor. That is when the business incredible or record breaking like on the Vertigo Tour and the 360 tour.

Still, selling 319,000 copies of an album in 2017/2018 is not bad at all. Justin Timberlake's latest has only done a little over 400,000. The sad fact is most people are not even listening to albums in any format anymore. Their just listening to individual songs, a couple from this artist, a couple from that artist. Technology has killed the album regardless of the format it is in. That's not good for artist in the future, because individual songs are not a very good basis for building fandom and getting fans to spend $100 dollars a ticket or more to come to a show. As the public becomes less invested in any particular artist, they become less likely to support concert performances. Why go see a band or artist when you only like or listen to two of their songs? The public is starting to place LESS VALUE on music in general, and even less value on the artist that produce the music.

But U2 are an album band! They always have been. That means they produce albums that from first track to last, are fantastic with no filler. It takes incredible talent to be able to do that. People use to appreciate that, but not anymore it seems.

Still, I hope U2 do not lose heart and realize that they still have a very dedicated following that is interested in their new music and generally prefer the album/tour cycle that is based around new music which is what the band has always been about.

U2 is a long way from being a state fair act! They could still produce some more top notch albums but its not going to last forever obviously.

100 or 200 years from now people will look back and see 1940 to 2030 (or so) as the age of the recording star. Technology first made it possible, and then eliminated it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 18, 2018, 12:53:33 PM

I got some new soundscan data from the latest chart and its not good news for album sales whether they be physical or digital. Here is the latest top 10:

So essentially the same except Guns N Roses gets edited out of the TOP CURRENT ALBUMS chart. Also, the info that the #200 album only sold 572 copies was for the TOP CURRENT ALBUMS chart which edits the older albums out. So the #200 album on the regular album chart/soundscan chart I usually use probably still sold at least 1,200 copies. Its likely that Songs Of Experience is still charting on the TOP CURRENT ALBUMS chart somewhere between numbers 101 and 200, but soundscan info for those chart positions on that chart has not been reported in years, except for the leak today that the #200 album only sold 572 copies. Hope this does not confuse anyone.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 18, 2018, 04:48:40 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For most of U2's career, the new album and whether it was successful or not played the primary factor in whether the tour was a success. U2 had their first downturn with the POPMART tour and it was because the POP album was poorly received. The next three albums and did very well though and so did their tours. This is the first tour U2 has ever done where the number of fans who purchased or listened to the album was less than the number of fans that purchased a ticket for the tour. For POP and POPMART it was one for one. But typically, album sales have always been greater than ticket sales.

So unfortunately it appears that the legacy factor is for the first time dominating things over the new album which is not good news for the band. It shows that overall interest in the band is dwindling. While some "legacy acts" do record business, most get stuck playing the local farm show or town festival. Its not the ideal place to be. The ideal is having new music that brings in new fans, old fans, and everything in between + the legacy factor. That is when the business incredible or record breaking like on the Vertigo Tour and the 360 tour.

Still, selling 319,000 copies of an album in 2017/2018 is not bad at all. Justin Timberlake's latest has only done a little over 400,000. The sad fact is most people are not even listening to albums in any format anymore. Their just listening to individual songs, a couple from this artist, a couple from that artist. Technology has killed the album regardless of the format it is in. That's not good for artist in the future, because individual songs are not a very good basis for building fandom and getting fans to spend $100 dollars a ticket or more to come to a show. As the public becomes less invested in any particular artist, they become less likely to support concert performances. Why go see a band or artist when you only like or listen to two of their songs? The public is starting to place LESS VALUE on music in general, and even less value on the artist that produce the music.

But U2 are an album band! They always have been. That means they produce albums that from first track to last, are fantastic with no filler. It takes incredible talent to be able to do that. People use to appreciate that, but not anymore it seems.

Still, I hope U2 do not lose heart and realize that they still have a very dedicated following that is interested in their new music and generally prefer the album/tour cycle that is based around new music which is what the band has always been about.

This theory presumes that the success of 360 was based on the reception NLOTH received. Iíve seen this argued here before, but I think that tour succeeded despite, not because of, that album.

To be honest, though, Iím not really following what all of this data and analysis is supposed to telling me, or how Iím supposed to react. Iím not surprised the album wasnít a commercial smash, nor that the tour may not be as successful as previous ones. Iím not surprised they may be losing popularity over time. Truthfully, I canít say I care too muchóthe band is still enormously successful, and much closer to the end of their career than the start. And there are a lot of factors that influence those things. It also doesnít stop me from enjoying their work (or criticizing the stuff I may not like). Theyíll be fine.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 18, 2018, 09:44:09 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For most of U2's career, the new album and whether it was successful or not played the primary factor in whether the tour was a success. U2 had their first downturn with the POPMART tour and it was because the POP album was poorly received. The next three albums and did very well though and so did their tours. This is the first tour U2 has ever done where the number of fans who purchased or listened to the album was less than the number of fans that purchased a ticket for the tour. For POP and POPMART it was one for one. But typically, album sales have always been greater than ticket sales.

So unfortunately it appears that the legacy factor is for the first time dominating things over the new album which is not good news for the band. It shows that overall interest in the band is dwindling. While some "legacy acts" do record business, most get stuck playing the local farm show or town festival. Its not the ideal place to be. The ideal is having new music that brings in new fans, old fans, and everything in between + the legacy factor. That is when the business incredible or record breaking like on the Vertigo Tour and the 360 tour.

Still, selling 319,000 copies of an album in 2017/2018 is not bad at all. Justin Timberlake's latest has only done a little over 400,000. The sad fact is most people are not even listening to albums in any format anymore. Their just listening to individual songs, a couple from this artist, a couple from that artist. Technology has killed the album regardless of the format it is in. That's not good for artist in the future, because individual songs are not a very good basis for building fandom and getting fans to spend $100 dollars a ticket or more to come to a show. As the public becomes less invested in any particular artist, they become less likely to support concert performances. Why go see a band or artist when you only like or listen to two of their songs? The public is starting to place LESS VALUE on music in general, and even less value on the artist that produce the music.

But U2 are an album band! They always have been. That means they produce albums that from first track to last, are fantastic with no filler. It takes incredible talent to be able to do that. People use to appreciate that, but not anymore it seems.

Still, I hope U2 do not lose heart and realize that they still have a very dedicated following that is interested in their new music and generally prefer the album/tour cycle that is based around new music which is what the band has always been about.

To be honest, though, Iím not really following what all of this data and analysis is supposed to telling me, or how Iím supposed to react.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is one of the elements of the business side of U2 which naturally does have some impact on their career and the choices they make in the future. Its also interesting to look at and compare with how other artist are doing just for that reason alone. By clicking on and reading this thread, you've at least showed some interest in the subject.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 19, 2018, 08:58:11 AM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For most of U2's career, the new album and whether it was successful or not played the primary factor in whether the tour was a success. U2 had their first downturn with the POPMART tour and it was because the POP album was poorly received. The next three albums and did very well though and so did their tours. This is the first tour U2 has ever done where the number of fans who purchased or listened to the album was less than the number of fans that purchased a ticket for the tour. For POP and POPMART it was one for one. But typically, album sales have always been greater than ticket sales.

So unfortunately it appears that the legacy factor is for the first time dominating things over the new album which is not good news for the band. It shows that overall interest in the band is dwindling. While some "legacy acts" do record business, most get stuck playing the local farm show or town festival. Its not the ideal place to be. The ideal is having new music that brings in new fans, old fans, and everything in between + the legacy factor. That is when the business incredible or record breaking like on the Vertigo Tour and the 360 tour.

Still, selling 319,000 copies of an album in 2017/2018 is not bad at all. Justin Timberlake's latest has only done a little over 400,000. The sad fact is most people are not even listening to albums in any format anymore. Their just listening to individual songs, a couple from this artist, a couple from that artist. Technology has killed the album regardless of the format it is in. That's not good for artist in the future, because individual songs are not a very good basis for building fandom and getting fans to spend $100 dollars a ticket or more to come to a show. As the public becomes less invested in any particular artist, they become less likely to support concert performances. Why go see a band or artist when you only like or listen to two of their songs? The public is starting to place LESS VALUE on music in general, and even less value on the artist that produce the music.

But U2 are an album band! They always have been. That means they produce albums that from first track to last, are fantastic with no filler. It takes incredible talent to be able to do that. People use to appreciate that, but not anymore it seems.

Still, I hope U2 do not lose heart and realize that they still have a very dedicated following that is interested in their new music and generally prefer the album/tour cycle that is based around new music which is what the band has always been about.

To be honest, though, Iím not really following what all of this data and analysis is supposed to telling me, or how Iím supposed to react.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is one of the elements of the business side of U2 which naturally does have some impact on their career and the choices they make in the future. Its also interesting to look at and compare with how other artist are doing just for that reason alone. By clicking on and reading this thread, you've at least showed some interest in the subject.

Because this thread seems to be as much about the state of the music industry as it is SOE sales, I would be interested in what others (wons too, but not just wons) think about it. Here are my thoughts.

There has been some great art created in the era of the music industry but lets face it, the commercialization of music has produced, and is still producing, alot of crap that I wouldnít call art. I like the idea of music regaining more of what it used to be, where it was a local community thing. The status quo where its all or nothing for an artist, and people stopped paying attention to the guy that lives across town because they were so distracted by a national artist with flashing lights and a TV show, has its drawbacks. When I was in high school it was such a big deal for a local band to have a ďrecordĒ because pressing vinyl was pretty expensive on a small scale. Then it was really cool because of the advent of the home studio and you could sell CD-Rs. Now the final physical barrier to distributing recorded music is falling. It may not be a great thing for established artists who have been making millions of dollars releasing multiple greatest hits album with just one new song, but for the local musician who has a day job and just wants the joy of having a couple hundred people like their song on Soundcloud its awesome! If you like music, pay attention to Soundcloud, Pledgemusic, CDBaby. There is some brilliant music out there that the major labels donít care about. If I had all the options to discover music that I have now when I was in High School I would have flunked out. All I had back then was Rolling Stone and the local record store. Those sources represented a tiny fraction of all the music that was being made. Support your local musicians and enjoy some really great music where you can have a beer with the band on their break and talk about whats going on in town. Help fill the tip jar and share their music on your playlist (Spotify or whatever). This is how it works today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 19, 2018, 04:24:30 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For most of U2's career, the new album and whether it was successful or not played the primary factor in whether the tour was a success. U2 had their first downturn with the POPMART tour and it was because the POP album was poorly received. The next three albums and did very well though and so did their tours. This is the first tour U2 has ever done where the number of fans who purchased or listened to the album was less than the number of fans that purchased a ticket for the tour. For POP and POPMART it was one for one. But typically, album sales have always been greater than ticket sales.

So unfortunately it appears that the legacy factor is for the first time dominating things over the new album which is not good news for the band. It shows that overall interest in the band is dwindling. While some "legacy acts" do record business, most get stuck playing the local farm show or town festival. Its not the ideal place to be. The ideal is having new music that brings in new fans, old fans, and everything in between + the legacy factor. That is when the business incredible or record breaking like on the Vertigo Tour and the 360 tour.

Still, selling 319,000 copies of an album in 2017/2018 is not bad at all. Justin Timberlake's latest has only done a little over 400,000. The sad fact is most people are not even listening to albums in any format anymore. Their just listening to individual songs, a couple from this artist, a couple from that artist. Technology has killed the album regardless of the format it is in. That's not good for artist in the future, because individual songs are not a very good basis for building fandom and getting fans to spend $100 dollars a ticket or more to come to a show. As the public becomes less invested in any particular artist, they become less likely to support concert performances. Why go see a band or artist when you only like or listen to two of their songs? The public is starting to place LESS VALUE on music in general, and even less value on the artist that produce the music.

But U2 are an album band! They always have been. That means they produce albums that from first track to last, are fantastic with no filler. It takes incredible talent to be able to do that. People use to appreciate that, but not anymore it seems.

Still, I hope U2 do not lose heart and realize that they still have a very dedicated following that is interested in their new music and generally prefer the album/tour cycle that is based around new music which is what the band has always been about.

To be honest, though, Iím not really following what all of this data and analysis is supposed to telling me, or how Iím supposed to react.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is one of the elements of the business side of U2 which naturally does have some impact on their career and the choices they make in the future. Its also interesting to look at and compare with how other artist are doing just for that reason alone. By clicking on and reading this thread, you've at least showed some interest in the subject.

Because this thread seems to be as much about the state of the music industry as it is SOE sales, I would be interested in what others (wons too, but not just wons) think about it. Here are my thoughts.

There has been some great art created in the era of the music industry but lets face it, the commercialization of music has produced, and is still producing, alot of crap that I wouldnít call art. I like the idea of music regaining more of what it used to be, where it was a local community thing. The status quo where its all or nothing for an artist, and people stopped paying attention to the guy that lives across town because they were so distracted by a national artist with flashing lights and a TV show, has its drawbacks. When I was in high school it was such a big deal for a local band to have a ďrecordĒ because pressing vinyl was pretty expensive on a small scale. Then it was really cool because of the advent of the home studio and you could sell CD-Rs. Now the final physical barrier to distributing recorded music is falling. It may not be a great thing for established artists who have been making millions of dollars releasing multiple greatest hits album with just one new song, but for the local musician who has a day job and just wants the joy of having a couple hundred people like their song on Soundcloud its awesome! If you like music, pay attention to Soundcloud, Pledgemusic, CDBaby. There is some brilliant music out there that the major labels donít care about. If I had all the options to discover music that I have now when I was in High School I would have flunked out. All I had back then was Rolling Stone and the local record store. Those sources represented a tiny fraction of all the music that was being made. Support your local musicians and enjoy some really great music where you can have a beer with the band on their break and talk about whats going on in town. Help fill the tip jar and share their music on your playlist (Spotify or whatever). This is how it works today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll take U2, The Police, Pearl Jam, Big Country, Metallica, R.E.M., Coldplay, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, INXS over any local talent any day of the week. Say what you will about the music business, but without it, over 99% of people who like these bands would not know about them. This website were posting on would not exist! Lets remember this is a U2 fan website. Support U2 and their work that we love.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 19, 2018, 04:41:58 PM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For most of U2's career, the new album and whether it was successful or not played the primary factor in whether the tour was a success. U2 had their first downturn with the POPMART tour and it was because the POP album was poorly received. The next three albums and did very well though and so did their tours. This is the first tour U2 has ever done where the number of fans who purchased or listened to the album was less than the number of fans that purchased a ticket for the tour. For POP and POPMART it was one for one. But typically, album sales have always been greater than ticket sales.

So unfortunately it appears that the legacy factor is for the first time dominating things over the new album which is not good news for the band. It shows that overall interest in the band is dwindling. While some "legacy acts" do record business, most get stuck playing the local farm show or town festival. Its not the ideal place to be. The ideal is having new music that brings in new fans, old fans, and everything in between + the legacy factor. That is when the business incredible or record breaking like on the Vertigo Tour and the 360 tour.

Still, selling 319,000 copies of an album in 2017/2018 is not bad at all. Justin Timberlake's latest has only done a little over 400,000. The sad fact is most people are not even listening to albums in any format anymore. Their just listening to individual songs, a couple from this artist, a couple from that artist. Technology has killed the album regardless of the format it is in. That's not good for artist in the future, because individual songs are not a very good basis for building fandom and getting fans to spend $100 dollars a ticket or more to come to a show. As the public becomes less invested in any particular artist, they become less likely to support concert performances. Why go see a band or artist when you only like or listen to two of their songs? The public is starting to place LESS VALUE on music in general, and even less value on the artist that produce the music.

But U2 are an album band! They always have been. That means they produce albums that from first track to last, are fantastic with no filler. It takes incredible talent to be able to do that. People use to appreciate that, but not anymore it seems.

Still, I hope U2 do not lose heart and realize that they still have a very dedicated following that is interested in their new music and generally prefer the album/tour cycle that is based around new music which is what the band has always been about.

To be honest, though, Iím not really following what all of this data and analysis is supposed to telling me, or how Iím supposed to react.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is one of the elements of the business side of U2 which naturally does have some impact on their career and the choices they make in the future. Its also interesting to look at and compare with how other artist are doing just for that reason alone. By clicking on and reading this thread, you've at least showed some interest in the subject.

Because this thread seems to be as much about the state of the music industry as it is SOE sales, I would be interested in what others (wons too, but not just wons) think about it. Here are my thoughts.

There has been some great art created in the era of the music industry but lets face it, the commercialization of music has produced, and is still producing, alot of crap that I wouldnít call art. I like the idea of music regaining more of what it used to be, where it was a local community thing. The status quo where its all or nothing for an artist, and people stopped paying attention to the guy that lives across town because they were so distracted by a national artist with flashing lights and a TV show, has its drawbacks. When I was in high school it was such a big deal for a local band to have a ďrecordĒ because pressing vinyl was pretty expensive on a small scale. Then it was really cool because of the advent of the home studio and you could sell CD-Rs. Now the final physical barrier to distributing recorded music is falling. It may not be a great thing for established artists who have been making millions of dollars releasing multiple greatest hits album with just one new song, but for the local musician who has a day job and just wants the joy of having a couple hundred people like their song on Soundcloud its awesome! If you like music, pay attention to Soundcloud, Pledgemusic, CDBaby. There is some brilliant music out there that the major labels donít care about. If I had all the options to discover music that I have now when I was in High School I would have flunked out. All I had back then was Rolling Stone and the local record store. Those sources represented a tiny fraction of all the music that was being made. Support your local musicians and enjoy some really great music where you can have a beer with the band on their break and talk about whats going on in town. Help fill the tip jar and share their music on your playlist (Spotify or whatever). This is how it works today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll take U2, The Police, Pearl Jam, Big Country, Metallica, R.E.M., Coldplay, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, INXS over any local talent any day of the week. Say what you will about the music business, but without it, over 99% of people who like these bands would not know about them. This website were posting on would not exist! Lets remember this is a U2 fan website. Support U2 and their work that we love.

In 1977, U2 was local talent. If they hadnít been attracting an enthusiastic audience and, as a result, getting the attention of people like Bill Graham, this forum would not exist and you never would have heard of U2. The same is true for all the bands you mention above. Iím not saying major label music stinks. That would be ridiculous. Iím just saying much of it is highly derivative and targeted for the masses and if its all you are paying attention to you are missing out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Boba Fett on July 19, 2018, 04:42:39 PM

Couple of bits of context...

Music has been around for thousands of years.

The idea that an 'album' was the pinnacle of musical expression was only relevant for a few decades. And really, only became so due to the popularity of the vinyl LP - which had the capacity of around 20-25 minutes of recorded music on each side.

Technology has meant that musicians are now free from than restriction. The only problem is a business problem - an industry grew up very quickly around the advent of the LP. As that era is now effectively over, musicians need to think of other mechanisms if they want to commercialize their art. Interesting times...:)

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 19, 2018, 07:44:46 PM

The idea that an 'album' was the pinnacle of musical expression was only relevant for a few decades. And really, only became so due to the popularity of the vinyl LP - which had the capacity of around 20-25 minutes of recorded music on each side.

Technology has meant that musicians are now free from than restriction. The only problem is a business problem - an industry grew up very quickly around the advent of the LP. As that era is now effectively over, musicians need to think of other mechanisms if they want to commercialize their art. Interesting times...:)

Yes, when things have been a certain way your entire life its hard to imagine them any other way. The movie ďOh brother where art thouĒ gives you a good idea how the commercialization of music started and how young it is. The business.model will continuously change but music is not going away.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 20, 2018, 12:25:44 AM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For most of U2's career, the new album and whether it was successful or not played the primary factor in whether the tour was a success. U2 had their first downturn with the POPMART tour and it was because the POP album was poorly received. The next three albums and did very well though and so did their tours. This is the first tour U2 has ever done where the number of fans who purchased or listened to the album was less than the number of fans that purchased a ticket for the tour. For POP and POPMART it was one for one. But typically, album sales have always been greater than ticket sales.

So unfortunately it appears that the legacy factor is for the first time dominating things over the new album which is not good news for the band. It shows that overall interest in the band is dwindling. While some "legacy acts" do record business, most get stuck playing the local farm show or town festival. Its not the ideal place to be. The ideal is having new music that brings in new fans, old fans, and everything in between + the legacy factor. That is when the business incredible or record breaking like on the Vertigo Tour and the 360 tour.

Still, selling 319,000 copies of an album in 2017/2018 is not bad at all. Justin Timberlake's latest has only done a little over 400,000. The sad fact is most people are not even listening to albums in any format anymore. Their just listening to individual songs, a couple from this artist, a couple from that artist. Technology has killed the album regardless of the format it is in. That's not good for artist in the future, because individual songs are not a very good basis for building fandom and getting fans to spend $100 dollars a ticket or more to come to a show. As the public becomes less invested in any particular artist, they become less likely to support concert performances. Why go see a band or artist when you only like or listen to two of their songs? The public is starting to place LESS VALUE on music in general, and even less value on the artist that produce the music.

But U2 are an album band! They always have been. That means they produce albums that from first track to last, are fantastic with no filler. It takes incredible talent to be able to do that. People use to appreciate that, but not anymore it seems.

Still, I hope U2 do not lose heart and realize that they still have a very dedicated following that is interested in their new music and generally prefer the album/tour cycle that is based around new music which is what the band has always been about.

To be honest, though, Iím not really following what all of this data and analysis is supposed to telling me, or how Iím supposed to react.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is one of the elements of the business side of U2 which naturally does have some impact on their career and the choices they make in the future. Its also interesting to look at and compare with how other artist are doing just for that reason alone. By clicking on and reading this thread, you've at least showed some interest in the subject.

Because this thread seems to be as much about the state of the music industry as it is SOE sales, I would be interested in what others (wons too, but not just wons) think about it. Here are my thoughts.

There has been some great art created in the era of the music industry but lets face it, the commercialization of music has produced, and is still producing, alot of crap that I wouldnít call art. I like the idea of music regaining more of what it used to be, where it was a local community thing. The status quo where its all or nothing for an artist, and people stopped paying attention to the guy that lives across town because they were so distracted by a national artist with flashing lights and a TV show, has its drawbacks. When I was in high school it was such a big deal for a local band to have a ďrecordĒ because pressing vinyl was pretty expensive on a small scale. Then it was really cool because of the advent of the home studio and you could sell CD-Rs. Now the final physical barrier to distributing recorded music is falling. It may not be a great thing for established artists who have been making millions of dollars releasing multiple greatest hits album with just one new song, but for the local musician who has a day job and just wants the joy of having a couple hundred people like their song on Soundcloud its awesome! If you like music, pay attention to Soundcloud, Pledgemusic, CDBaby. There is some brilliant music out there that the major labels donít care about. If I had all the options to discover music that I have now when I was in High School I would have flunked out. All I had back then was Rolling Stone and the local record store. Those sources represented a tiny fraction of all the music that was being made. Support your local musicians and enjoy some really great music where you can have a beer with the band on their break and talk about whats going on in town. Help fill the tip jar and share their music on your playlist (Spotify or whatever). This is how it works today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll take U2, The Police, Pearl Jam, Big Country, Metallica, R.E.M., Coldplay, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, INXS over any local talent any day of the week. Say what you will about the music business, but without it, over 99% of people who like these bands would not know about them. This website were posting on would not exist! Lets remember this is a U2 fan website. Support U2 and their work that we love.

In 1977, U2 was local talent. If they hadnít been attracting an enthusiastic audience and, as a result, getting the attention of people like Bill Graham, this forum would not exist and you never would have heard of U2. The same is true for all the bands you mention above. Iím not saying major label music stinks. That would be ridiculous. Iím just saying much of it is highly derivative and targeted for the masses and if its all you are paying attention to you are missing out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact remains, no major lable support, you and I never hear of U2 and this website does not exist. Lots of people write music and learn how to play the guitar. But they are nothing special let alone U2.

The quality of music over this past decade in my opinion is the worst or lowest quality it has ever been. Part of that is do to how the business has been ruined by technology. There is less money to be made, and there for people and possible talent are less likely to invest serious time in it.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 20, 2018, 12:29:56 AM

The idea that an 'album' was the pinnacle of musical expression was only relevant for a few decades. And really, only became so due to the popularity of the vinyl LP - which had the capacity of around 20-25 minutes of recorded music on each side.

Technology has meant that musicians are now free from than restriction. The only problem is a business problem - an industry grew up very quickly around the advent of the LP. As that era is now effectively over, musicians need to think of other mechanisms if they want to commercialize their art. Interesting times...:)

So what is your favorite piece of music from 2,000 years ago? How about 100 years ago? I would guess that most of the music that you know and love comes that "restricted" time period that also produced U2.

If the past 10 years is in any indication, the future is not bright for new music.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 20, 2018, 12:32:47 AM

The idea that an 'album' was the pinnacle of musical expression was only relevant for a few decades. And really, only became so due to the popularity of the vinyl LP - which had the capacity of around 20-25 minutes of recorded music on each side.

Technology has meant that musicians are now free from than restriction. The only problem is a business problem - an industry grew up very quickly around the advent of the LP. As that era is now effectively over, musicians need to think of other mechanisms if they want to commercialize their art. Interesting times...:)

Yes, when things have been a certain way your entire life its hard to imagine them any other way. The movie ďOh brother where art thouĒ gives you a good idea how the commercialization of music started and how young it is. The business.model will continuously change but music is not going away.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The music may not go away, but the quality of it definitely has declined over the past decade. This decade has not produced any U2 caliber artist.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 20, 2018, 04:52:42 AM

Thanks, wons. These are sobering stats. I have been fascinated by this thread because it offers a glimpse of how many of "us" there are out there. A dwindling amount, it appears.

My pleasure! So 319,000 people purchased the album in either a physical or digital format. A much smaller group of people either streamed or puchased individual tracks from the album equivalent to maybe another 30,000 albums sold. Billboard considers the sale of 10 individual track downloads to = One album sold. Billboard considers 1,500 streams = to One Album sold.

The POP album was considered a poor seller back in 1997 by U2's standards and industry standards at the time. But at least everyone who purchased a ticket for POPMART purchased one copy of the POP album. I'm not exactly sure about this, but it seems like only 1/2 or 1/3 of the people who went to see the Experience Tour purchased the album or listened to it. That seems odd considering that most of the fanbase knows a tour like this is not a nostalgia event but is about the new album primarily.

Wons,

Iíve asked this before but you never answered. By default, didnít EVERYONE who bought a ticket for E&I buy the CD as well? Or are you saying the 319,000 includes those sales and there were 400K to 600K who bought tickets. Meaning only 1/3 to 1/2 redeemed their included CD, less the people who didnít buy tickets but bought the CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.

Only a fraction of the people who purchased TICKETS for the tour got the album in a digital or physical format FROM their TICKET PURCHASE. That number, is then added to sales of the album that occurred, 1. through online stores for digital formats and physical formats and 2. people who went to a physical store to pick up a physical copy of the album.

So album sales came from three sources:1. Album/ticket bundle2. online sales of digital and physical formats3. Physical stores selling a physical copy of the album

All 3 of those combine for a total of 319,000 in sales.

The number of tickets sold for the tour in the United States was 438,059. I don't know the exact figure, but it could be as little as 50,000 of ticket buyers redeeming the album and getting in digital or physical format with the purchase of the ticket.

One important thing is, you could NOT use the ticket purchase to get DELUXE album version of the album. The only way to get the DELUXE version of the album was to purchase it from an online store or a physical store.

Personally, I'm responsible for 3 of the albums in the 319,000 album total since I purchased the DELUXE version of the album at the local record store and then redeemed each of the two tickets I purchased for a copy of the album. The copy of the album offered is just the regular album with only 13 tracks. I kept one and gave the other one away.

Its not clear what the exact breakdown of the 319,000 is in terms of what and how people got their albums. I might be able to dig up some of that data for the first week of sales which were 180,000, more than half the total. The breaking down between physical vs digital formats is probably 50/50.

I hope that makes it clear.

So, to me, that just indicates that my preferences are not uncommon. There are a lot of people out there that have no use for a physical disc. I canít remember if my ticket offered a digital download or CD, but I think it was just CD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every person who purchased a ticket had the option to get the album in digital format or physical format. All sales are physical and digital combined. My argument here has NEVER been about CD's(which you mysteriously continue to talk about) or specifically any physical product. A digital album sold is the same as a physical cd or record sold. What is not the same is streaming.

Your preference though is to stream the music which is NOT the same as purchasing the album in a digital format. Purchasing the album, regardless of format is all the same. Streaming is an entirely different thing.

90% of the people, which does not include YOU, purchased this album in either a digital or physical format. Your group, the streamers, comprise less than 10% of the people who have listened to the album.

So when it comes to U2 fans who have listened to Songs Of Experience, your preference for streaming as opposed to purchasing the album, is very uncommon.

I do realize digital copy and CD is the same as far as sales. Thatís why I asked if a digital copy or CD was offered with the ticket.

So you have your answer then donít you? A large percentage of the fans who went to the show are uninterested in the new album. I donít really find that surprising. Most people that go to shows like U2 are going for legacy reasons. The latest album has not received alot of mainstream attention.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For most of U2's career, the new album and whether it was successful or not played the primary factor in whether the tour was a success. U2 had their first downturn with the POPMART tour and it was because the POP album was poorly received. The next three albums and did very well though and so did their tours. This is the first tour U2 has ever done where the number of fans who purchased or listened to the album was less than the number of fans that purchased a ticket for the tour. For POP and POPMART it was one for one. But typically, album sales have always been greater than ticket sales.

So unfortunately it appears that the legacy factor is for the first time dominating things over the new album which is not good news for the band. It shows that overall interest in the band is dwindling. While some "legacy acts" do record business, most get stuck playing the local farm show or town festival. Its not the ideal place to be. The ideal is having new music that brings in new fans, old fans, and everything in between + the legacy factor. That is when the business incredible or record breaking like on the Vertigo Tour and the 360 tour.

Still, selling 319,000 copies of an album in 2017/2018 is not bad at all. Justin Timberlake's latest has only done a little over 400,000. The sad fact is most people are not even listening to albums in any format anymore. Their just listening to individual songs, a couple from this artist, a couple from that artist. Technology has killed the album regardless of the format it is in. That's not good for artist in the future, because individual songs are not a very good basis for building fandom and getting fans to spend $100 dollars a ticket or more to come to a show. As the public becomes less invested in any particular artist, they become less likely to support concert performances. Why go see a band or artist when you only like or listen to two of their songs? The public is starting to place LESS VALUE on music in general, and even less value on the artist that produce the music.

But U2 are an album band! They always have been. That means they produce albums that from first track to last, are fantastic with no filler. It takes incredible talent to be able to do that. People use to appreciate that, but not anymore it seems.

Still, I hope U2 do not lose heart and realize that they still have a very dedicated following that is interested in their new music and generally prefer the album/tour cycle that is based around new music which is what the band has always been about.

To be honest, though, Iím not really following what all of this data and analysis is supposed to telling me, or how Iím supposed to react.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is one of the elements of the business side of U2 which naturally does have some impact on their career and the choices they make in the future. Its also interesting to look at and compare with how other artist are doing just for that reason alone. By clicking on and reading this thread, you've at least showed some interest in the subject.

Because this thread seems to be as much about the state of the music industry as it is SOE sales, I would be interested in what others (wons too, but not just wons) think about it. Here are my thoughts.

There has been some great art created in the era of the music industry but lets face it, the commercialization of music has produced, and is still producing, alot of crap that I wouldnít call art. I like the idea of music regaining more of what it used to be, where it was a local community thing. The status quo where its all or nothing for an artist, and people stopped paying attention to the guy that lives across town because they were so distracted by a national artist with flashing lights and a TV show, has its drawbacks. When I was in high school it was such a big deal for a local band to have a ďrecordĒ because pressing vinyl was pretty expensive on a small scale. Then it was really cool because of the advent of the home studio and you could sell CD-Rs. Now the final physical barrier to distributing recorded music is falling. It may not be a great thing for established artists who have been making millions of dollars releasing multiple greatest hits album with just one new song, but for the local musician who has a day job and just wants the joy of having a couple hundred people like their song on Soundcloud its awesome! If you like music, pay attention to Soundcloud, Pledgemusic, CDBaby. There is some brilliant music out there that the major labels donít care about. If I had all the options to discover music that I have now when I was in High School I would have flunked out. All I had back then was Rolling Stone and the local record store. Those sources represented a tiny fraction of all the music that was being made. Support your local musicians and enjoy some really great music where you can have a beer with the band on their break and talk about whats going on in town. Help fill the tip jar and share their music on your playlist (Spotify or whatever). This is how it works today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll take U2, The Police, Pearl Jam, Big Country, Metallica, R.E.M., Coldplay, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, INXS over any local talent any day of the week. Say what you will about the music business, but without it, over 99% of people who like these bands would not know about them. This website were posting on would not exist! Lets remember this is a U2 fan website. Support U2 and their work that we love.

In 1977, U2 was local talent. If they hadnít been attracting an enthusiastic audience and, as a result, getting the attention of people like Bill Graham, this forum would not exist and you never would have heard of U2. The same is true for all the bands you mention above. Iím not saying major label music stinks. That would be ridiculous. Iím just saying much of it is highly derivative and targeted for the masses and if its all you are paying attention to you are missing out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact remains, no major lable support, you and I never hear of U2 and this website does not exist. Lots of people write music and learn how to play the guitar. But they are nothing special let alone U2.

The quality of music over this past decade in my opinion is the worst or lowest quality it has ever been. Part of that is do to how the business has been ruined by technology. There is less money to be made, and there for people and possible talent are less likely to invest serious time in it.

If all you listen to is major label music from ďbigĒ artists Iím not surprised you feel this way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 20, 2018, 02:51:41 PM

You know, my favorite music tends to be from the 70ís, 80ís, and 90ís too, but Iím also aware enough of the reasons for it. Familiarity, nostalgia, and cultural context affect me as much as the folks deriding the Beatles in the 60ís. We like what we like, and eventually get set in our ways.

Also, I love the idea of insisting we support U2 rather than local music, as if theyíre mutually exclusive, or as if U2 might suffer as a result. FFS, Iím willing to bet U2 would encourage it themselves. The only important thing is to support what you like, really.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 20, 2018, 10:18:25 PM

You know, my favorite music tends to be from the 70ís, 80ís, and 90ís too, but Iím also aware enough of the reasons for it. Familiarity, nostalgia, and cultural context affect me as much as the folks deriding the Beatles in the 60ís. We like what we like, and eventually get set in our ways.

Also, I love the idea of insisting we support U2 rather than local music, as if theyíre mutually exclusive, or as if U2 might suffer as a result. FFS, Iím willing to bet U2 would encourage it themselves. The only important thing is to support what you like, really.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes there is nothing to argue about here. I was just curious if others see the pros as well as the cons of how technology is changing how they listen to music. For me personally, I find the only rock music played on the radio is OLD rock music. Look at the bands Wons listed. Most of them have retired!

But I find there is lots of good ďrockĒ music going on, it just doesnít get on the radio. Established bands making new music and newer acts as well. Switchfoot and Simple Minds have both put out some of the best music of their careers in recent years. Bands like Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC. Snow Patrolís new album is pretty good. No way is Rock dead!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Johnny Feathers on July 20, 2018, 10:23:53 PM

You know, my favorite music tends to be from the 70ís, 80ís, and 90ís too, but Iím also aware enough of the reasons for it. Familiarity, nostalgia, and cultural context affect me as much as the folks deriding the Beatles in the 60ís. We like what we like, and eventually get set in our ways.

Also, I love the idea of insisting we support U2 rather than local music, as if theyíre mutually exclusive, or as if U2 might suffer as a result. FFS, Iím willing to bet U2 would encourage it themselves. The only important thing is to support what you like, really.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes there is nothing to argue about here. I was just curious if others see the pros as well as the cons of how technology is changing how they listen to music. For me personally, I find the only rock music played on the radio is OLD rock music. Look at the bands Wons listed. Most of them have retired!

But I find there is lots of good ďrockĒ music going on, it just doesnít get on the radio. Established bands making new music and newer acts as well. Switchfoot and Simple Minds have both put out some of the best music of their careers in recent years. Bands like Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC. Snow Patrolís new album is pretty good. No way is Rock dead!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I agree with you. The difference is in how to find it now. You wonít find a lot of new rock on radio. If you want it, you may have to do a little more searching. Truthfully, Iíll admit to missing some of the old industry models, but itís a trade off: now you can find all sorts of stuff out there if youíre willing to look for it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 21, 2018, 01:38:29 AM

You know, my favorite music tends to be from the 70ís, 80ís, and 90ís too, but Iím also aware enough of the reasons for it. Familiarity, nostalgia, and cultural context affect me as much as the folks deriding the Beatles in the 60ís. We like what we like, and eventually get set in our ways.

Also, I love the idea of insisting we support U2 rather than local music, as if theyíre mutually exclusive, or as if U2 might suffer as a result. FFS, Iím willing to bet U2 would encourage it themselves. The only important thing is to support what you like, really.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look at the bands Wons listed. Most of them have retired!

Bands like Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC. Snow Patrolís new album is pretty good. No way is Rock dead!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of the 10 bands I listed, 6 of them are still active. So that is a majority.

Switchfoot, Simple Minds, Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC, and Snow Patrol are all old in the sense that they were all releasing music before the start of this decade. Looking at rock artist that released their first album after January 2010, its not easy to find anything of the caliber seen in previous decades.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 21, 2018, 07:44:10 AM

You know, my favorite music tends to be from the 70ís, 80ís, and 90ís too, but Iím also aware enough of the reasons for it. Familiarity, nostalgia, and cultural context affect me as much as the folks deriding the Beatles in the 60ís. We like what we like, and eventually get set in our ways.

Also, I love the idea of insisting we support U2 rather than local music, as if theyíre mutually exclusive, or as if U2 might suffer as a result. FFS, Iím willing to bet U2 would encourage it themselves. The only important thing is to support what you like, really.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look at the bands Wons listed. Most of them have retired!

Bands like Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC. Snow Patrolís new album is pretty good. No way is Rock dead!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of the 10 bands I listed, 6 of them are still active. So that is a majority.

Switchfoot, Simple Minds, Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC, and Snow Patrol are all old in the sense that they were all releasing music before the start of this decade. Looking at rock artist that released their first album after January 2010, its not easy to find anything of the caliber seen in previous decades.

Do you really think there has not been a single good rock band appear on the scene in the last 18 years? Coldplay is the most recent band on your list. Honestly you come across more as a grumpy old ďkids these days and their bad music and new-fangled technologyĒ kind of person than a fan of rock music. Trust me... there are some great new bands out there. I didnít list them because I figured if you hadnít heard of them you would dismiss them as no-bodies. If theyíve been around awhile and youíve heard of them youíll say they are a product of the old world before it was broken...therefore you are right and the sky is indeed falling.

It seems like your preference is to have a big crowd gather around an artist to prove they are good before you deem them a legitimate rock band and worthy of giving a listen. Thatís why you are so afraid people might not be liking U2 as much. You need lots of other people to like what you like. One way of ensuring that happens is to only like what lots of other people are already liking. That might have worked when Rock was mainstream. But tastes of the younger generation are changing from what we grew up with. Rock is becoming more of a niche audience as our generation ages, just like western swing did for my grandparents generation and the crooners did for my parents. But guess what? There are still great Western Swing artists out there. Probably more than there were in its heyday because there is more of everything now. But, yeah, you see them in 2,000 seat venues not arenas. You know what? Its a lot better to see a band in a 2,000 seat venue than a 40,000 seat arena.

If youíre interested in possibly seeing things you hadnít noticed before, this conversation can be worthwhile. If you just want to win a silly pointless argument you can set the boundaries up any way you want and make that happen. You can have the argument. I just canít accept all the doom and gloom U2 might be fading with its fans/Rock is dead stuff. U2 will make music as long as they are inspired and There is going to be great new rock music, more than we can listen to, until we die. It will have a resurgence and then fade again but not dying anytime soon.

In case you might have an open mind check out the following bands. Some are more well-known but have become well-known at least since Coldplay did. Others that are newer you may not have heard of. But they are all bands I have enjoyed. I feel bad that a fellow U2 fan is missing out on some GREAT music.

SpoonBon Iver (surely you know this one)Cvrches (if you like DM)Gang of Youths (pls check this one out)Black KeysRainbow Kitten Surprise (really good)DecemberistsArcade FireThe Paper Kites (mellow/folk but good)Imagine Dragons (kind of moved on from ďRockĒ lately)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: wons on July 21, 2018, 01:07:51 PM

You know, my favorite music tends to be from the 70ís, 80ís, and 90ís too, but Iím also aware enough of the reasons for it. Familiarity, nostalgia, and cultural context affect me as much as the folks deriding the Beatles in the 60ís. We like what we like, and eventually get set in our ways.

Also, I love the idea of insisting we support U2 rather than local music, as if theyíre mutually exclusive, or as if U2 might suffer as a result. FFS, Iím willing to bet U2 would encourage it themselves. The only important thing is to support what you like, really.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look at the bands Wons listed. Most of them have retired!

Bands like Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC. Snow Patrolís new album is pretty good. No way is Rock dead!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of the 10 bands I listed, 6 of them are still active. So that is a majority.

Switchfoot, Simple Minds, Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC, and Snow Patrol are all old in the sense that they were all releasing music before the start of this decade. Looking at rock artist that released their first album after January 2010, its not easy to find anything of the caliber seen in previous decades.

Do you really think there has not been a single good rock band appear on the scene in the last 18 years?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I said since January 2010 which is 8.5 years, not 18 years.

Quote

It seems like your preference is to have a big crowd gather around an artist to prove they are good before you deem them a legitimate rock band and worthy of giving a listen. Thatís why you are so afraid people might not be liking U2 as much. You need lots of other people to like what you like. One way of ensuring that happens is to only like what lots of other people are already liking. That might have worked when Rock was mainstream.

Big Country was never a BIG band in terms of popularity. In the United States, they are regarded as a one hit wonder. But they have 9 great albums and are an amazing band. Sometimes even referred to as the Scottish U2. Their most popular album was the Crossing released in 1983. It went GOLD in the United States for 500,000 in sales. They played theaters and clubs when they toured the United States. I saw then in a bar in West Chester PA in 2013. There were about 150 people there.

I also love PJ Harvey. She has had a long career, but she never sold enough to get even a GOLD record in the United States. She plays theaters and clubs. Best female artist in the world in my opinion!

Sorry, but your theory about me and what I like and why I like it holds no water at all. It it did, I'd be ranking my favorite U2 albums by how much they sold with Songs of Experience at the bottom. I think Songs Of Experience is their 6th best album out of the 14 they have produced.

Quote

Its a lot better to see a band in a 2,000 seat venue than a 40,000 seat arena.

If youíre interested in possibly seeing things you hadnít noticed before, this conversation can be worthwhile. If you just want to win a silly pointless argument you can set the boundaries up any way you want and make that happen. You can have the argument. I just canít accept all the doom and gloom U2 might be fading with its fans/Rock is dead stuff. U2 will make music as long as they are inspired and There is going to be great new rock music, more than we can listen to, until we die. It will have a resurgence and then fade again but not dying anytime soon.

In case you might have an open mind check out the following bands. Some are more well-known but have become well-known at least since Coldplay did. Others that are newer you may not have heard of. But they are all bands I have enjoyed. I feel bad that a fellow U2 fan is missing out on some GREAT music.

SpoonBon Iver (surely you know this one)Cvrches (if you like DM)Gang of Youths (pls check this one out)Black KeysRainbow Kitten Surprise (really good)DecemberistsArcade FireThe Paper Kites (mellow/folk but good)Imagine Dragons (kind of moved on from ďRockĒ lately

I'm surprised you mention Imagine Dragons. I've listened to a lot of their stuff and don't like it. They do have one song I like though, but thats it.

The Paper KitesRainbow Kitten SurpriseGangs Of YouthChvrches

These four artist are new to me and all appear to have started in the current decade in terms of the release of their first album. I'll check them out to see if any of them are great.

By the way I've loved several bands who have come after Coldplay's first album, or at least that I discovered after Coldplay's first album like Snow Patrol, The Killers, and Kings Of Leon. Its just that since 2010, it just seems like things have really gone down hill or simply nothing has really caught my interest that is new.

Title: Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
Post by: Tortuga on July 21, 2018, 08:37:01 PM

You know, my favorite music tends to be from the 70ís, 80ís, and 90ís too, but Iím also aware enough of the reasons for it. Familiarity, nostalgia, and cultural context affect me as much as the folks deriding the Beatles in the 60ís. We like what we like, and eventually get set in our ways.

Also, I love the idea of insisting we support U2 rather than local music, as if theyíre mutually exclusive, or as if U2 might suffer as a result. FFS, Iím willing to bet U2 would encourage it themselves. The only important thing is to support what you like, really.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look at the bands Wons listed. Most of them have retired!

Bands like Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC. Snow Patrolís new album is pretty good. No way is Rock dead!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of the 10 bands I listed, 6 of them are still active. So that is a majority.

Switchfoot, Simple Minds, Mutemath, Kings of Leon, BRMC, and Snow Patrol are all old in the sense that they were all releasing music before the start of this decade. Looking at rock artist that released their first album after January 2010, its not easy to find anything of the caliber seen in previous decades.

Do you really think there has not been a single good rock band appear on the scene in the last 18 years?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I said since January 2010 which is 8.5 years, not 18 years.

Quote

It seems like your preference is to have a big crowd gather around an artist to prove they are good before you deem them a legitimate rock band and worthy of giving a listen. Thatís why you are so afraid people might not be liking U2 as much. You need lots of other people to like what you like. One way of ensuring that happens is to only like what lots of other people are already liking. That might have worked when Rock was mainstream.

Big Country was never a BIG band in terms of popularity. In the United States, they are regarded as a one hit wonder. But they have 9 great albums and are an amazing band. Sometimes even referred to as the Scottish U2. Their most popular album was the Crossing released in 1983. It went GOLD in the United States for 500,000 in sales. They played theaters and clubs when they toured the United States. I saw then in a bar in West Chester PA in 2013. There were about 150 people there.

I also love PJ Harvey. She has had a long career, but she never sold enough to get even a GOLD record in the United States. She plays theaters and clubs. Best female artist in the world in my opinion!

Sorry, but your theory about me and what I like and why I like it holds no water at all. It it did, I'd be ranking my favorite U2 albums by how much they sold with Songs of Experience at the bottom. I think Songs Of Experience is their 6th best album out of the 14 they have produced.

Quote

Its a lot better to see a band in a 2,000 seat venue than a 40,000 seat arena.

If youíre interested in possibly seeing things you hadnít noticed before, this conversation can be worthwhile. If you just want to win a silly pointless argument you can set the boundaries up any way you want and make that happen. You can have the argument. I just canít accept all the doom and gloom U2 might be fading with its fans/Rock is dead stuff. U2 will make music as long as they are inspired and There is going to be great new rock music, more than we can listen to, until we die. It will have a resurgence and then fade again but not dying anytime soon.

In case you might have an open mind check out the following bands. Some are more well-known but have become well-known at least since Coldplay did. Others that are newer you may not have heard of. But they are all bands I have enjoyed. I feel bad that a fellow U2 fan is missing out on some GREAT music.

SpoonBon Iver (surely you know this one)Cvrches (if you like DM)Gang of Youths (pls check this one out)Black KeysRainbow Kitten Surprise (really good)DecemberistsArcade FireThe Paper Kites (mellow/folk but good)Imagine Dragons (kind of moved on from ďRockĒ lately

I'm surprised you mention Imagine Dragons. I've listened to a lot of their stuff and don't like it. They do have one song I like though, but thats it.

The Paper KitesRainbow Kitten SurpriseGangs Of YouthChvrches

These four artist are new to me and all appear to have started in the current decade in terms of the release of their first album. I'll check them out to see if any of them are great.

By the way I've loved several bands who have come after Coldplay's first album, or at least that I discovered after Coldplay's first album like Snow Patrol, The Killers, and Kings Of Leon. Its just that since 2010, it just seems like things have really gone down hill or simply nothing has really caught my interest that is new.

The 18 years was since Coldplayís first album came out. Coldplay was the latest one on your list to come on the scene. That is why I was saying 18 years.

Big Country and Simple Minds both suffer that issue of being a one-hit wonders in the US. If you havenít already, check out Simple Minds more recent releases. I think they are better than most of what they put out in the 80s and 90s.

Also if you havenít paid attention to Switchfoot, you should see what you think. They donít sound like U2 but there is aomething there that if you like U2 I think you might like them. They keep exploring new boundaries and they defy the demise of rock bands!